148
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
148 points (75.9% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4842 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the 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
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.
How utterly convenient from the party whose rules are discretionary when they want to fuck over progressives.
Gaslight someone else. I read the transcripts correctly.
Even if you provide a source, he said the opposite before a judge. Not under oath is bullshit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She's not even there no more. She is not "the DNC".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.]
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.
Oh, now DWS still runs the DNC?
No. The party argued in court that if they wanted to, they could select their nominee in a smoke filled back room and ignore their charter.
But now they totally can't because and only because Biden is supporting genocide for them and they don't want him to stop.
You have failed to prove that because couldn't show a single quote from any DNC member. No way in hell can we accept anybody's vague claims, characterizations, or generalization -- because that is one of Pathological Liar Trump's chief tactics and I'm so sick of that bullshit. But even if you had it would reflect only on particular individuals. The DNC has hundreds of members and tens of thousands of past members. The DNC is not a person any more than a corporation is a person. Still, I was actually starting to root for you to prove your case. But nope you definitely failed. If you ever do find actual incriminating quotes from individuals past or present DNC members pretending they can ignore the charter feel free to send them to me. But I am doubting very much that you could ever do that.
What they want makes no difference. They don't have the legal right to choose the nominee, only the elected delegates have the legal right. If the delegates went into a closed door smoking allowed room, and the head of the DNC said to them "We are going to nominate Mr X instead of Job Biden. You are all dismissed." Do you have any doubts at all what would happen next? The delegates would all march out and hold a press conference and say "We the elected delegates did not choose Mr X. to be the Dem nominee." There is not a single court in the country that would not side with the delegates.
No. So even if you found any direct quotes from DWS, it would show DWS to be a bad person, but would not reflect on the current DNC at all. Like I said, the DNC is not a person. It is a diverse group of individuals.
That's an absurd standard. They argued in court via their lawyer.
You literally have failed to prove that because you couldn’t show a single quote from any DNC member. And it is in fact NOT one of the 3 specific arguments made according to the document.
Not in the slightest. There is absolutely know way we can judge anything without seeing a single actual quote of what was said. Vague meaningless accusations are what Traitorapist Trump does, and it is important to understand that vague claims are completely meaningless.
It's not vague though. Their paid legal representative articulated their position under oath in court. I quoted it, you moved the goalposts and said I needed the long-form version like some birther. I posted a link to that and now you claim I have to quote DWS herself saying "we can disregard the charter when we want to, mwahahahaha!" in order to satisfy you. The previous rounds of goalpost moving and the accompanying gaslighting indicate that you intend to dismiss whatever I provide you and have since the beginning.
It is absolutely vague because it is a generalization with no specifics at all. Without any actual quotes, it is completely impossible to judge your claim. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said, not just to know if there is anything at all there but also to know how serious of a problem it would be. Specific details if they did actually exist would show us not only a smoking gun but who fired the gun and how much damage they did with the gun and if any other people carried guns. Those details would be enormously important. It's true that if a former DNC chairman had incriminating quotes it would only directly implicate her. But a reporter would certainly want to ask the present DNC chairman if they agreed. And if the wrong answer was given, they would need to be fired.
You gave absolutely no quotes from anybody in the DNC or their employee. Vague accusations are worthless
No 'goalpost' was moved. OF COURSE we need the specific details to judge whether vague claims are valid or not. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said. Any idiot can go around making vague claims. If actual incriminating quotes existed then how come Putin's propaganda never provided them to you in all this time? With all the people like you that are desperate to find actual evidence do you really think that if any actual quotes existed -- and which would be available in the public record for anybody to find -- that Putin's 50 billion dollars spent on intelligence services would not have already found those quotes and already made them widely available on the internet to people who are extremely eager to believe The Narrative?
I told you before. Find the details to prove your case. Or waste time looking for quotes that do not exist because if they did exist, then not only would you already know about them, but everybody else would already know about them. I would already know about them. But look at it this way. If you did find actual incriminating quotes, that would make you a huge hero to all the people on the internet who want that incriminating evidence, and which Putin's $50 billion intelligence service was not unable to find.
You are determined to ignore any proof I give you. You have never argued in good faith and never will. I gave you a direct quote from the DNC's lawyer, backing up what I said, and you made up excuses for ignoring it, with the heaviest dose of gaslighting I've ever seen.
The only way to satisfy you is to lie and say you're right.