TokenBoomer'Babbling' and 'hoarse': Biden's debate performance sends Democrats into a panic
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.
John RichardAre you willing to let Trump win though than have Biden step aside? That is what the DNC should be asking themselves. The polls are say 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.
retrospectologyThere doesn’t have to be a strong candidate, just anyone stronger than Biden who’s basically zombie-crawling across the floor.
He absolutely can be replaced at this stage, and by nearly anyone.
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.
The DNC charter says that only the voters can select the nominee.
They argued in court that they could ignore this.
Nope. They argued in court that they could alter their charter.
BlackbeardHe 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 legally 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.
But Biden can.
Gretchen Whitmer would run away with the election. Plus, we get Michigan (swing state) and the suburban moms. I really can’t see a downside.
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.
We got FDR and LBJ and Lincoln and Washington. So if you think that then that’s on your own faulty thinking.
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.
If the progressives truly thought that then the US would have a much different stance in regards to Israel.
The party would rather lose democracy forever than nominate AOC.
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.
IninewCrowAny 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.
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.
apnews.com/…/biden-replacement-democratic-ballot-…
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.
Election 2024: Why it would be tough for Democrats to replace Joe Biden
It would be nearly impossible for Democrats to replace President Joe Biden as their 2024 presidential nominee unless he chooses to step aside following his halting debate performance against ex-President Donald Trump. Democratic rules say that the delegates Biden won in state primaries should support him at the party’s upcoming national convention unless he tells them he’s leaving the race. Biden's performance Thursday has led some in his own party to begin questioning whether he should be replaced on the ballot before November. Vice President Kamala Harris is Biden’s running mate, but that doesn’t mean she can swap in for him at the top of the ticket by default.
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 form 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.
www.courthousenews.com/…/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 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.
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.
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.
The party argued in court that if they wanted to
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.
they don’t want him to stop.
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.
Oh, now DWS still runs the DNC?
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.
You have failed to prove that because couldn’t show a single quote from any DNC member.
That’s an absurd standard. They argued in court via their lawyer.
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.
That’s an absurd standard.
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.
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.
and likely never vote for a majority political party again.
If Trump wins you will never get to vote in a free and fair election ever again.
Which will be the fault of Democrats.
This line of thought always amuses me. “It’s democrats faults for not stopping republicans from be horrible people”
Oooooorrrrr maybe it’s republicans fault… for being horrible people?
“It’s the fire departments fault my house burned down, not the guy who lit it on fire.”
The democrats should not have dressed so provocatively!
What they are doing is akin to elder abuse
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.
It will be the fault of Republicans first and asshats on the internet 2nd.
Not the elder abusers?
Dunno are you an elder abuser?
No I’m not Jill Biden
If Trump wins you will never get to vote in a free and fair election ever again.
We heard this same talking point in 2016 but somehow we still had a 2020 election.
As if the J6 putsch didn’t happen lol
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.
That’s the problem, everyone told the DNC this was going to happen and yet they all just kept with Biden.
What is with this absurd disconnect from reality? The DNC charter says only the voters have the power to choose the nominee.
That’s the problem, everyone told the DNC this was going to happen and yet they all just kept with Biden.
i think that’s only the tip of the iceberg; we’re going to vote for them anyways so they literally have no reason to bother listening, ever.
That’s the real danger of Donny. If you care at all about the country you have to vote for the Democrat. It gives the Dems too much power.
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.