Skip Navigation
politics @lemmy.world
TokenBoomer @lemmy.world

'Babbling' and 'hoarse': Biden's debate performance sends Democrats into a panic

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.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
239 comments

  • 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.

    • Centrists gaslight when they know they're wrong.

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

      • 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.

        • 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.

              • DE 54, at 36:22-24

                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.

                • https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/WildingDNC.pdf

                  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

                    1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,
                    2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,
                    3. 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?

239 comments