The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

  • IninewCrow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    206 months ago

    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.

    • @btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -6
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        186 months ago

        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.

        • @btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -16 months ago

          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.

          • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            Centrists gaslight when they know they’re wrong.

            I’ve read the transcripts. They argued that the charter was discretionary.

            • @btaf45@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              A) I voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.

              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.

              https://apnews.com/article/biden-replacement-democratic-ballot-dnc-rules-7aa836b0ae642a68eec86cc0bebd3772

              I’ve read the transcripts. They argued that the charter was discretionary.

              You misread the transcripts and it gave you a dunning-kruger understanding. Even if the lawyer had said that it would still be completely incorrect.

              • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                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.

                • @btaf45@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    16 months ago

                    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.