I watched about 30 minutes, gotta say Trump was all over the map and not answering questions. Biden was raspy and stuttered, like he does , but he actually answered the questions. Trumps answer about what he would do about the fentanyl crisis was ‘I bought a dog’
When asked if he supports some restrictions on abortion, Biden said he “supports Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters. The first time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between a doctor and an extreme situation. A third time is between the doctor, I mean, between the women and the state.”
He missed a slam dunk when he pivoted from abortion to immigration, there was no logical reason to do that. Let alone some of his other statements. We need an open convention, if Trump is as big of a threat to democracy as Dems (accurately) claim then it is far past time that they start acting like it.
He missed a slam dunk when he pivoted from abortion to immigration, there was no logical reason to do that.
The Republican strategy has been to focus on immigration as the root of all economic evil. And since Biden’s economic gains have been heavily overstated, he’s forced right back into the old “We have to force foreigners out in order to keep our wealth in” fascist politics.
We need an open convention
Idk who this “We” is supposed to be. Are you speaking as a well-positioned party superdelegate, member of the DNC leadership committee, or mega-donor? Or are you some internet armchair asshole watching this trainwreck from the nosebleed seats?
Are you speaking as a well-positioned party superdelegate, member of the DNC leadership committee, or mega-donor? Or are you some internet armchair asshole watching this trainwreck from the nosebleed seats?
Oh, I’m neither. I’m someone who is going to be forced to deal with the consequences of this shitshow however it plays out. Since I, through no choice of my own, have skin in this game, I’m as entitled to my opinion as you are. Biden should step aside, and it is the morally correct move to do so.
he’s forced
Biden isn’t forced to do anything. He wasn’t forced to adopt Trump’s immigration policies, and he sure as shit wasn’t forced to pivot from the strongest issue the Dems have to one of the weakest.
I heard quite a few people earlier in the year stating that the plan was for Joe to bow out last minute due to health issue, and announce that Michelle Obama would be the candidate. I know it’s probably not likely, but it’s an exciting thought. Someone like Newsom would be another decent option
I didn’t say it wasn’t risky. I’m saying what I heard. But, I also don’t think it’s that risky.
She would be a much better debater and candidate, and it would likely erase much of the voter apathy with the huge 40 and under group. Especially with abortion and womans rights on the table.
And I’m a huge Bernie supporter, but we’ve seen several times now that the DNC isn’t going to give him a chance. So who else you got cause Bernie’s chance died in 2016
The thing is, is (Michelle) Obama even interested in politics? I’ll admit I’m quite ignorant of her career in politics other than having been the First Lady.
I’d vote for her over Biden or Trump any day, though.
I got nobody else besides her and Sanders. Maybe Schumer? AOC 😂?
It was dumb just going along with Biden as the nominee, hubris and status quo thinking. Now the Democratic party needs to come up with something to energize the electorate. Scaring people with democracy being on the line, while completely true, isn’t gonna do it. Hoping the attacks on reproductive rights will carry them over the finish line is a bad idea. Trying to bring Harris out now into the limelight isn’t gonna work. People are tired and struggling. The youth feel betrayed and themselves are struggling. There is no energy coming from up on top. Dems have always sucked at messaging.
The thing is, nobody ever said billionaires were smart. A lot of people conflate being wealthy with being intelligent, and that’s simply not the case.
The fatal mistake the billionaire donor class is making here is that they think Trump can be controlled if he does win. They aren’t worried about fascism because money is the real king of America and always has been.
And that line of thinking is solid until a fascist dictator who doesn’t want to give up their power or have it limited by anybody else decides that the wealthy are no longer their allies and has the secret police “deal with them”.
Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established. These people are already buying off the government, they’re not the little guys who could be taken over by a fascist government, they’re the ones pulling the strings.
So is oligarchy, the invisible hand, if it ever did exist, clearly no longer does if the market movements are determined by insider information and government bribes, I mean lobbying. Innovation is constantly stifled when that innovation costs rich people potential profit. Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds. Capitalists are about as good at following their dogma as Evangelical Christians.
You realize most consumer level brokers have apps right? The vast majority of Americans have retirement and other investments with brokers that have apps. You don’t seriously expect me to believe that inherently makes it dumb.
I’m not calling you dumb and I’m sorry I sounded that way. I would never access any financial accounts on a phone or have any financial phone apps because of the gigantic risk. And I would never make any trade that requires another human to confirm my trade. And I would certainly never let any ‘broker’ access to my investments.
Many billionaires are not only morons, they’re racist morons. They also love the trappings of fascism—as long as they get to be the ones on top.
Have you seen that article about that one techbro rich boy and how he wants to structure San Francisco? How the techbros would wear grey shirts, and their Republican friends would red shirts, and everyone else would be forced to wear blue shirts, and those with grey and red shirts would get preferential treatment, because they would buy out the cops?
You shouldn’t be. The rich supporting fascists (and vice versa) is nothing new.
:::spoiler Excerpts from Blackshirts and Reds, by Michael Parenti
To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.
In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the “March on Rome,” contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy’s top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist “revolution”—really a coup d’état—took place. . .
In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.
During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.
In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end. . .
Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy. . .
Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks, and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.
At the same time, taxes were increased for the general populace but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes on the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished altogether.
Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.
Literally no Dem in the entire country prefers Traitorapist Trump to even a house plant. Trump and “real structural progressive economic reform” are completely disconnected things. It’s not even remotely an either/or choice.
I think we’ve been operating on the false assumption that the Democratic partys primary goal is to win. I would wager that as far as campaign contributions go, it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose. I feel like the past few presidential races have been the American populace trying to force them to win anyways when they obviously didn’t want to.
A lot of their decisions make a lot more sense in that context.
Any funds raised can only be used to win elections, not to buy themselves candy and ice cream. But if they don’t win they don’t get any personal gifts from lobbyists or cushy jobs after leaving office.
it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose
LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense. The only use of the money they raise is to win elections. It’s not like if they lose they can use the leftover money to buy a new car. If there even is any leftover money, which there almost always is not.
I admire your optimism, but even if you aren’t willing to bend the rules and stick to the letter of the ethics rules, you can still use campaign funds for a fairly broad amount of items. And, if you are willing to bend the rules… when’s the last time you heard of someone getting in trouble for misuse of campaign funds? If you remember one at all, i’d wager it was George Santos, and it took a huge amount of misuse there for people to start paying attention.
He could energize the electorate by ending the genicide in Palestine, nationalizing the rail industry or Boeing, expanding the Supreme Court and investigating their corruption, or displaying unlimited support for clean energy and dismantling the fossil fuel industry. But I doubt any of that will happen.
It won’t happen because Biden doesn’t want to do any of those things. The DNC would rather risk the nation crumbling into fascism than take any of those steps to stop it.
The newly elected delegates this year literally is the DNC. The smaller group of caretakers do not have the legal power to purge the large number of elected delegates. And these delegates are bound by the party charter to vote Biden on the first ballot. Unless Biden releases his delegates, which he could do and might do if convinced he is not the best choice to defeat Trump. So I am hoping that behind the scenes Dems are working furiously to convince Biden to release his delegates so that Gavin Newsome can be the nominee instead.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Show real people who have been helped by Biden’s policies in the commercials.
People don’t trust institutions anymore. They don’t trust authority anymore. But put a real person in front of them and there’s a chance a plurality won’t call them paid actors and will understand that things are getting better.
I’m not in a panic. I knew this. Should he have run again? Hell no. I wish he would have had the courage to call it a day.
That being said, I’m fully willing to endure 4 years of Weekend at Bernie’s if it means I won’t have to go through the embarrassment of having the orange moron at the helm.
Are you willing to let Trump win though than have Biden step aside? That is what the DNC should be asking themselves. The polls are way to close for Biden to have that poor of a performance. If Democrats are seriously worried about Trump being the end of Democracy then they would not be okay with Biden being the DNC’s best choice.
While I agree, it’s way too late in the game to change up now. There’s no strong candidate waiting in the wings. It’s not about willing, it’s about alternatives.
He absolutely can be replaced at this stage, and by nearly anyone.
He absolutely can’t be legally replaced unless he agrees to that. And the replacement would automatically be Harris unless she agrees to allow someone else. The DNC charter says that only the voters can select the nominee. Changing that charter this close to an election likely wouldn’t stand up in courts. The only way to replace Biden would be to convince him to step down.
He absolutely can be replaced at this stage, and by nearly anyone.
Only if they can convince him to step aside and let someone else run. At this point the voters have selected 3,904 delegates who are contractually obligated to cast a vote for him at the Convention. If the delegates somehow simply ignored the primaries, they’d be quite literally ignoring the will of their voters and taking matters into their own hands. It’s alarming how many on the left (who presumably had a problem with the DNC’s treatment of Bernie in 2016) are cheering for the DNC to heavily influence the primary process again. I don’t necessarily disagree that something drastic needs to be negotiated, but the irony of this is really hard to ignore.
This is the way the DNC set their rules up, they’ve been ok using the system to kneecap progressives, I see no reason that they shouldn’t do that to Biden. I’m not precious about the DNC and I have no illusion that it’s democratic, so they just need to stop pretending they’re being held back by principles and just pull the levers they always pull to control the convention outcome.
Yes, and the rules were voted on by party members before the primary started. They’re now in place, and they’re obligated to respect them until this process plays out. Same thing happened in 2016. Say what you will about whether the rules were “fair” or not, they were agreed upon before Iowa, and they were respected through the Convention.
The way you use “kneecap progressives” tells me you’re conflating DNC primary rules and campaign finance. The two are not the same thing. They could do to Biden what they did to Bernie and blast the airwaves with damaging, misleading attacks, but none of that would fundamentally change the fact that the primary rules were agreed upon and are immutable until the Convention comes to a close.
And to reiterate, it’s not “principles” that are holding them back. It’s a contractual obligation whose violation would open them up to civil litigation. Voters picked delegates and they’re obligated to respect the voters who selected them. The DNC can’t just tell them to take a hike.
There are so many better options at this point. I can’t help but shake that the two party system is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Make people think that mediocrity is the best we can get if we’re lucky.
You’re free to keep supporting Biden at this point but hopefully when you see all the Democratic news outlets saying the same things tomorrow and this coming week and the polls showing Biden’s support dropping you’ll reconsider
WTF are you talking about. What I want is for Biden to drop out and be replaced by Gavin Newsom. Nor did I vote for Biden in the 2020 primary. I’m just saying that you’re completely wrong that the system cannot produce good candidates since we’ve had great presidents in the past.
AOC would be a really strong candidate. The right would freak out and she’d end up getting more press coverage than Trump. I imagine she’d make several Republican’s embolisms pop.
Yes, she’s probably the only one with enough name recognition and veracity to take on the orange moron in my opinion. Problem is corporate Democrats wouldn’t back her because she’s too progressive and that goes against their corporate masters.
True… However if Trump gets elected and our government is able to prevent a dictatorship, in 4 years progressives will hopefully realize the DNC needs them more than they need need the DNC.
in 4 years progressives will hopefully realize the DNC needs them more than they need need the DNC.
the progressives already know that the dnc needs them more than they need the dnc as evidenced by dnc surrogates perpetually shaming progressives for not voting for the dnc; i’m guessing there’s a typo in your sentence somewhere, but i’m not sure where.
I think it’s to late to change things up. That’s the problem, everyone told the DNC this was going to happen and yet they all just kept with Biden.
That being said, I don’t think either Trump or Biden are in a state to actually run the country. Their cabinets are going to hold all the power, and I trust Bidens cabinet over Trumps any day.
Any change no matter if is too late or too inconvenient would be a better change for the DNC than to allow Biden at the top position. Seriously, any other DNC politician would be better than Biden even if they changed right now or in the next few months. All you need is some politician who is about 50 years old to fight Trump every day until the election and the orange menace would suffer a heart attack trying to keep up.
This is insane … it’s almost as if the powers that be want Trump to win and the only way they can ensure that is to put him up against an 80 year old competitor because it is the only candidate he could possibly beat.
Any change no matter if is too late or too inconvenient would be a better change for the DNC than to allow Biden at the top position.
It’s not up to the DNC to “allow” candidates or not. The DNC charter says the voters choose the nominee. They literally have no power to change the will of the voters. They could theoretically alter the Dem party charter, but doing so this close to an election would likely not stand up in courts. The only possible way to get a replacement candidate cough Gavin Newsom cough would be for Biden to formally ask his delegates not to select him. And since Harris would be the automatic replacement she would likely have to agree to allow someone else.
It’s not up to the DNC to “allow” candidates or not. The DNC charter says the voters choose the nominee. They literally have no power to change the will of the voters.
The DNC argued in court that they could ignore their bylaws and put their thumb on the scale as much as they wanted. Guess that only applies when they’re fucking over progressives.
Nope. A lawyer argued in court that they could legally change the party charter, in to win a court case. Which they theoretically could, but if they tried to alter the charter this close to the election it would be overturned in court for a great many reasons.
Thinking that “DNC” small group of caretakers can choose anyone they want shows that you have a profound lack of understanding of how things actually work. Legally, control of the DNC lies in the hands of the newly elected delegates. The small caretaker group does not have the power to purge the much bigger general membership of already elected delegates. If they tried to, every single DNC delegate elected this year could sue the caretakers and would very easily win that lawsuit. Furthermore, the party charter bounds the delegates to Biden on the first ballot. Biden will have to be convinced to formally release them before they could legally vote for anybody else.
The reason why you have a profound misunderstanding of how things actually work is because you were subjected to an onslaught of Kremlin propaganda in 2016 without knowing the source. And that propaganda gave you a dunning-kruger effect of vastly overestimating your knowledge of how the political parties actually work.
B) This article explains how things really work and how the elected delegates are legally binded to Biden on the first ballot and that it would be illegal for anybody in the executive committee or anybody besides Job Biden to release the delegates.
This article explains how things really work and how the elected delegates are legally binded to Biden on the first ballot and that it would be illegal for anybody in the executive committee or anybody besides Job Biden to release the delegates.
How utterly convenient from the party whose rules are discretionary when they want to fuck over progressives.
You misread the transcripts
Gaslight someone else. I read the transcripts correctly.
Even if the lawyer had said that it would still be completely incorrect.
Even if you provide a source, he said the opposite before a judge. Not under oath is bullshit.
How utterly convenient from the party whose rules are discretionary when they want to fuck over progressives.
The rules are hardcoded in the charter. The DNC never violated the party charter. Bernie Sanders number of delegates were 100% determined by the votes he got from people like me. I’ve never heard Bernie Sanders repeating your nonsense. Why the f*ck would I believe a random dunning kruger over Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is way smarter than you are and he never lies.
I read the transcripts correctly.
Then provide the exact reference so I can tell you where your wrong. Show me the exact evidence where a lawyer says “my employers hereby reserve the right to ignore their own organization’s charter that is the legal source of their authority”. Because I’ve proved the opposite. And you haven’t proved shit. All you ever done in this conversation is repeat vague accustions that came from the Kremlin with no details whatsoever. Also, there is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.
Even if you provide a source, he said the opposite before a judge.
WHO “said the opposite”? A lawyer is a hired employee, not a member of the DNC. He has no authority to violate the party charter. Not one single member of the DNC has ever said such a thing. Since the 1000+ newly elected delegates ARE THE DNC, why would they ever even want to violate the party charter? There is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.
Stop with the ‘gaslight’ shit. You’ve given no evidence at all to back up anything you’ve said. I’ve 100% proved my case with authoritive sources. YOU are gaslighting ME. Also, there is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.
And finally I want to say this. There is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.
For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.
That “cigars” quote was from the DNC’s legal counsel, acting as the party’s representative in court. This was after the party had already engaged in fuckery and were arguing in court that they should get away with it.
That’s the party’s position regarding its charter when it’s convenient to do so, which is to say, when they want to fuck over a progressive. But when there’s a centrist that the party wants to hang on to, then the charter was brought down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai.
Link? The only way for people to know if you are taking things out of context is to provide a link.
political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles…the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.
So it is exactly like I told you. No court would allow the Executive Committee to disregard the charter, let alone purge the DNC membership of the newly elected delegates.
Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise
This is a judge characterizing something. There are no quotes from the DNC’s hired lawyer, let alone from an actual former DNC member, let alone from a current DNC member. You need to provide an actual quote from an actual DNC member before we can judge this claim accurately.
Wasserman Schultz
She’s not even there no more. She is not “the DNC”.
That’s the party’s position
It’s not the “party’s position”, and certainly not anything they could legally do. All you have provided is a judge’s characterization of a former members characterization who wasn’t there to give any testimony and which was completely rejected by the judge. We haven’t seen any actual quotes of any actual current or former members of the DNC executive committee.
If the judge said that a DNC member could not break the law on some trivial thing why the hell would you think the legal system would allow the current DNC to reject a fundamental rule that the newly elected delegates ARE ALREADY MEMBERS OF THE DNC and can not be arbitrarily purged? The DNC members legally controls who the executive committee members are (and will do so at the convention). You are asserting the exact opposite is true. The executive committee does not have the legal right to remove members of the DNC. You have things 100% backwards. Bernie Sanders would personally explain that to you if you had a chance to talk to him.
Here’s your fucking link. Now don’t read it, immediately dismiss it and demand even more granular proof of what I initially said.
She’s not even there no more. She is not “the DNC”.
Considering that the entire reason they were in court revolved arounf the 2016 election, her corruption was going to be central. The party argued that their charter didn’t have to be followed, and the judge agreed and dismissed the case. Which you already know and are ignoring in bad faith now that it’s convenient to do so for the centrist wing of the party.
Your wing of the party. If every bad faith centrist who claims they voted for Sanders in the primary actually had, Sanders would have won both the primaries and the general.
Here’s your fucking link. Now don’t read it, immediately dismiss it and demand even more granular proof of what I initially said.
Okay. But I got no idea what “DE 54, at 36:22-24” is supposed to mean. I’ve never seen this before. And the first thing I noticed is that Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with this because he’s not an idiot.
and the judge agreed
Dude what part of “The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. " do you not understand? The judge did not agree that the charter can be dismissed. The judge dismissed the case because plaintiff did not prove any acts of impartiality.
Which you already know and are ignoring in bad faith
Go fuck off with your god damn lies. You don’t know shit about me. You are the only one who cares about Kremlin progaganda from 8 years ago. Normal people do not.
If every bad faith centrist who claims they voted for Sanders in the primary actually had
You aren’t talking about me. Because I did vote for Sanders twice, and am not a “centrist”. You only heard of Sanders when he ran for president in 2016 right? I was a fan of Sanders since before he became a senator when he was just a congressman in the 1990’s.
[But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality.]
The random person filing this lawsuit is not even alleging that the DNC failed to act impartial. She is apparently alleging that DWS PRIVATELY expressed support for Clinton. So what?
[The DNC’s bias, according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as “Guccifer 2.0”]
You know this is Putin right? You were played by Putin so he could get stooge Traitorapest Trump elected. Doesn’t that embarrass you? Sanders was outraged more than any other Dem about Trump’s gigantic tax cuts for billionaires. So everybody who fell for Kremlin propaganda let down Bernie Sanders.
[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,
that they have insufficiently pled those claims,
and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]
NONE OF THEIR 3 ARGUMENTS are claiming that they don’t have to follow the charter. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?
[For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise]
First of all this is the judge characterizing that DWS is characterizing something. None of these are direct quotes. THE JUDGE DID NOT SAY THAT THIS WAS ONE IF THE 3 ARGUMENTS of the DNC in the case. We would have the have the original direct quotes of DWS to know if she was seriously pretending that she could ignore the charter. If we had such quotes than DWS would have been immediately fired from the DNC, if she hadn’t already quit.
[While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle. ]
So even in the absolute worst case interpretation of this, there is nothing about the DNC claiming the right to dismiss its delegates. And There is nothing about the DNC claiming the delegates don’t have the right to chose the nominee. Which you are implying. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?
So even in the absolute worst case interpretation of this, there is nothing about the DNC claiming the right to dismiss its delegates.
Deciding in smoke filled rooms involves ignoring the charter entirely. Which the party argued in court that they could do. But they can’t now. Because centrist.
Russia didn’t force them to make that argument in court.
If you ever have a thought that isn’t a Clinton/Biden/Netanyahu talking point, let me know.
Which the party argued in court that they could do
Bullshit. What was the exact quote made by DWS? You have no supporting quote made by anybody in the DNC for that argument in the document. We would need the full trial transcript to know whether DWS was seriously pretending she could ignore the charter. If you want to be taken seriously, show me an exact quote made by a DNC member in the trial transcript. If you had been able to do that I would say “good job on that” and fully agree that that particular individual should have never worked at the DNC BUT VAGUE CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE WORTHLESS.
According to the document there were exactly 3 arguments.
[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,
that they have insufficiently pled those claims,
and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]
Deciding in smoke filled rooms involves ignoring the charter entirely.
Even if that had been an actual argument supported by a quote from a DNC member, this is still 100% false. The charter doesn’t say the delegates have to meet in a no smoking building. It just says the delegates pick the candidate. They could meet in any building they wanted to vote on the candidate. Your assertion that the executive committee could legally ignore the general delegates is completely absurd.
I agree. I’ll vote for Biden if I have to, but if Trump wins I’m not blaming RFK Jr like they blamed Bernie and Jill Stein in 2016. I’ll blame them and likely never vote for a majority political party again.
Republicans are horrible people. They gaslight, obstruct & project. Democracy is on the line here, so Democrats do the logical thing. They go to a nursing home and find someone that is talking about beating medicare to help lead them to victory.
As if it was successful. The US isnt a dictatorship, the president isn’t a dictator, and last time they tried to overwhelm it with force it did little to the political institutions of our country other than scare some politicians. The same body that was under attack voted against calling it a coup.
If this strategy allows them to win elections while putting forth the most donor friendly and least citizen friendly candidate, they’re not going to stop on their own. Go vote Biden sure but in 4 year if you don’t have a plan to ensure the next Dem candidate isn’t the least liked person whos technically better than a Republican then you’re responsible for the regression of the country.
At the end of the day, that’s the main takeaway here. It’s not so much the men themselves, but the people they intend to appoint to positions of authority. Biden will appoint experts and professionals to run the country for him. Trump will appoint sycophants and yes-men to do whatever he wants to do, even if it flies in the face of reason or standard procedure, and unlike last time he won’t allow anyone who isn’t 100% loyal to him to work in his administration.
Thats my take on it at least (although with Trump I’m not sure who will be using who if he’s elected). It’s frustrating that few people are talking about this, cause at the end of the day neither of them are fit (physically/mentally) to be president. So for once it really is just about the party and policies and not the person running.
We’ll need to see the polling in about a week but I haven’t seen a performance this bad since Palin. The Democrats may need to go to an open convention.
I’m fully willing to endure 4 years of Weekend at Bernie’s if it means I won’t have to go through the embarrassment of having the orange moron at the helm.
DEAR PLEASE GOD someone turn this into comedic satire before the election!!!
I would. You would. But there are millions of voters who aren’t as informed. And what they saw last night was an ancient, out of touch candidate channeling Walter Mondale. Many will probably still vote for him, but this performance will depress voter turnout.
So, we’ve got an old, racist guy who lied through most of his statements and refused to possibly say that he would accept the results of the election vs an old guy with a history of a speech impediment that showed signs of his speech impediment and regularly pointed out the lies spouted off by his convicted felon opponent. Why are the media companies banking Trump again?
Exactly. I guess we are learning that most of our fellow citizens have a hard time with nuance, and all they can do is shit their pants instead of toughen up.
Biden’s performance wasn’t an impediment. It was him fumbling and stuttering over his words, forgetting his debate prep and saying nonsensical things. I absolutely do not want Trump to win, but Biden’s debate performance in reality was poor. Many Democrats don’t want to accept that. It is fine if they want to ignore facts. The truth is the Democrats would be far better off if Kamala or AOC or someone else was running for President, and they are risking way too much despite the facts.
It’s not just a speech impediment, it’s a speech impediment in a fucking 81 year old man who shouldn’t be dealing with a stressful job in politics. Been around many octogenarians? He did great for someone his age.
If he were up against someone in their 30s or 40s, it would be terrible but, against an old racist nazi who can only seem to make complete statements when they are provably false? Well, I’d still prefer someone else but at least he has the balls to actually say the forbidden words of “you’re lying” and he’s the only choice that we’re allowed to have as infuriating as that is.
Trump is almost the same age and he is a liar but he also was quick enough to immediately use Biden’s blunders against him. Pretty much everything Biden said sounded scripted and then he still messed it up. Biden didn’t “look” like the smarter candidate. There is enough misinformation out there that if people go searching they’ll find sources that support Trump’s lies. Trump won for the undecided tonight that watches the debate and uses it to make s decision.
Trump won for the undecided tonight that watches the debate and uses it to make s decision.
Anyone who was “undecided” tonight was going to support Trump anyway, either directly or with a “protest vote”. Basically, to they were either lying to themselves or others and are quite alright with a nazi.
This is factually not true, and there are several people that don’t research every detail but try to make a decision based on intuition and performance… And even if they do research there are a lot of hook and bait misinformation networks that get routinely featured on Google News and other news aggregators. If someone thought Trump sounded like a stronger candidate tonight they may end up researching and seeing news supporting Trump’s version of events.
AOC? An ambitious woman who just barely will have squeezed past the minimum age requirement by the time of the election and half the country has decided is a communist? Don’t get me wrong, I think she’d be a fantastic candidate, maybe even the best, but I sincerely doubt that she’d poll better than Biden, even considering his horrendous performance in yesterday’s debate.
While I think that Joe’s got some dated views, being 81, if you’re honest, you’ve got to acknowledge that the immigration bill was nothing more than calling the GOP bluff and getting extra fodder for election ads. They knew that the GOP wouldn’t allow it to pass. It’s politics at its most bullshit; playing with human lives for points.
For the bussing, that was fifty, 5 0 years ago and his views have clearly changed. Yes, he has no legitimate place in politics at his age but neither does his opponent, who has been known to admire fascist and authoritarians of yore and the modern day.
A person’s view shouldn’t have to change on racial justice and equality, particular someone who’spart of the Democratic party. Sanders is just as old and he’s always been on the right side of history, it has nothing to do with age.
Biden is still racist and even if his far-right border policy was a gambit that’s really irresponsible, given the GOP could’ve easily just accepted the no-strings attached policy win. People need to stop making excuses for shitty politicians, and need to stop allowing the lesser evil be the enemy of good enough.
A person’s view shouldn’t have to change on racial justice and equality,
So you don’t believe in forgiveness or redemption? People aren’t allowed to ever change and improve themselves and are forever to be judged for every shitty thing they ever do? I dunno. I’d not want to live like that with any amount of self-reflection. I further might be inclined to question the authenticity of your claimed beliefs.
even if his far-right border policy was a gambit that’s really irresponsible, given the GOP could’ve easily just accepted the no-strings attached policy win.
That I do agree with. The seemingly constant use of “pied piper” and similar strategies by major Dems in order to avoid the slightest possibility of leftward movement is infuriating.
So you don’t believe in forgiveness or redemption?
Not for elected representatives, no. We’re not talking about someone’s uncle Randy who grew up in poverty and never went to school or met a black person or w/e. This is an educated person from a well-off background, they don’t have an excuse. There are plenty of other smart, motivated people out there who are fit for office and are morally consistent on these uncomplicated issues like racism.
Anyone who takes 80 years to become slightly less racist than their younger days is not someone I want running for office. Forgive them, give them credit for sorting out their personal prejudices, sure, but they need to do that on their own time, we don’t have time for leaders who are still struggling with the basics.
Biden has always been hawkish on immigration, even under Obama, whether this recent attempt was a ploy or not, it wasn’t a ploy during all the other times in his career he advocated for punishing immigration policy.
Sanders is just as old and he’s always been on the right side of history, it has nothing to do with age.
Sanders is older. And putting a finer point on it, the party was ageist af against him in 2016 when he was only 75. Being a progressive adds 20 years, I guess.
Yes, Trump is extremely racist. He’s also a right-winger, so that’s a given. The distinction between someone horrible like Trump and his opposition should be that the opposition is not horribly racist and fascist and doesn’t do things like fund a genocide.
I don’t vote for Democrats because of their label, I vote based on their potential to actually be meaningfully better. Biden is indistinguishable from your rank and file Republican, and while that’s “slightly less bad” than Trump himself, it’s not good enough. I am not a Republican, and I will not vote for representatives who share so many of their views. Biden needs to go, he’s going to cost the Democrats the election.
BoTh SiDeS. Here you are again spewing the same tired talking points. Reality is your choices are Trump or Biden, so saying you won’t vote for either means your voice doesn’t matter and you’re ok with Trump winning.
How come when they show old campaign videos of Biden where he’s plagiarizing others his so called stutter/speech impediment doesn’t seem to be there? And I thought the new excuse was that Biden had a cold anyway
…He was younger and the videos, being campaign videos, are edited to show him in the best possible light?
ETA: To be clear, I don’t think that he or anyone else too old to have to worry about the long-term consequences of their actions should be in office. But, he’s the only non-nazi choice available.
No. I didn’t tend to follow MSM. I think that’s it’s mostly that he snuggles up to dictators, says he wants to be a dictator, quotes Hitler, praises Hitler, and is supported by people waving about swastikas and spouting nazi slogans.
Yeah, you got it from the MSM. Otherwise, you’d have no reason to think that. I saw his speech that you speak of saying he wants to be a dictator, but you obviously didn’t
Noone who even “jokes” about wanting to be a dictator or president for life (like he said after meeting Xi Jinping) deserves to be anywhere near a seat of power. Any feedback on the rest? Like his habit of quoting Mein Kampf, praising Hitler, or how much people who identify as nazis love him? Don’t see any of that as the slightest bit problematic?
Joe’s got terrorist sympathizers that like him…does that make Joe a terrorist? And just because you don’t like Trumps jokes doesn’t make him a dictator either. He’s already been in office so we already know he’s not a nazi, dictator, etc.
I watched it and this wasn’t a stutter. This was a loss of his train of thought, switching topics unexpectedly, and creating needless openings for Trump to talk about things Biden didn’t have a good defense for. To be clear his decision making faculties are obviously intact. But this performance was really really bad. Night and day from 4 years ago.
It absolutely wasn’t just a stutter. It was an 81 year old with a history of speech impediment - things like that can manifest differently in old age. Maybe it’s from having grown up with a mother who was a nurse at an assisted living facility but, I really think that anyone who was shocked was setting expectations that are disconnected from the reality of how age impacts our communication abilities. If setting the bar at standards for people 10, 20, or 50 years younger, yeah, it was terrible. Relative to people of advanced age? He did well. When you’re that old, 4 years in a high-stress position is a long time.
It’s a bullshit choice as neither are in an age range where they should have power over long-term policy. It’s also pretty horrific in terms of ethics. But, a soggy turnip would be better than any nazi, much less a nazi who is a compulsive liar intent on using the political system for revenge and installing himself as dictator.
that was the worst fucking thing i’ve seen on tv in my life. holy shit that was depressing. yet it feels incredibly vindicating seeing every single media outlet openly say ‘that was a disaster, he should probably be out’. that was an absolute failure. rescheduling the debate would look better than that shit.
It was painful to watch. You go in wanting to watch Biden look strong and smart, and he came out looking sort of senile and slow. Trump might have told all lies but he still looked and sounded sharper than Biden and that is what people will use to make a decision.
There was a 12 point swing towards Trump in the before and after CNN flash poll. That’s bad. That’s wake everyone up and reef the sails because an out of season hurricane blew up on us bad.
It’s actually not a curated group, as long as you’re looking at reliable polls. In about a week a bunch of universities will release new head to head preference polling based on large diverse groups. Meanwhile we have to make do with push polls and media polls.
the take away from social media is fascinating, especially on the lemmyverse: the pejorative stores about biden’s performance are everywhere online and tv, but heavily downvoted on .world while the rest of the lemmyverse is much more closely matched with everything else in the world.
Add comment