July 23, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Tells us about your butt hurt over the GOP primaries in 2020. How many states cancelled? How many changes the date at the last minute? That was wrong as well, but I am not the one claiming to "save democracy". And again, I would have to voted in a primary or in the case of Arizona and Florida be registered Republican.
July 23, 20241 yr 37 minutes ago, BBE said: The delegates are now unpledged and not bound by any democratic result to vote for anyone. That is true, which myself and others have said. They could vote for someone else. My point was in this unique situation, they are using the same principle as the succession of in office, to apply it to the new election for their decision on what to do here. Not that voters have already voted for Harris in a 2024 primary. No one is saying that. But in considering voter desire, they did vote for Harris to be VP which means by default they approve her taking over if POTUS steps down while in office. It would be different if they said forget Harris, we're naming someone else random. Dem leaders discussed it internally for weeks and went public with support for Harris. The delegates will still officially nominate her at the convention. Democrats are not arguing anything is unfair or voters are being cheated. They simply are looking at the VP to step up as the new candidate and no one is disputing it. There's no controversy here. There's no breakdown of democratic process. There's nothing going against our Constitution. There have to be contingencies when a candidate drops out. If Biden had decided earlier, they could have officially had primaries where Harris could compete against others. At this point, the DNC is in a month. Hypothetically, if Biden had to step out one week before the general election, what would happen then? One month before? They would promote the VP. Rules and protocols usually have contingencies in place for emergencies and unique situations.
July 23, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, BBE said: That was wrong as well, but I am not the one claiming to "save democracy". And again, I would have to voted in a primary or in the case of Arizona and Florida be registered Republican. No true scotsman fallacy. Look, I agree that the weight of that punch isn't quite as heavy as it would've been but you're acting like it can't be thrown at all, and you're just flat out wrong. The claims of saving democracy were born from the illegal and ill-fated attempts by your guy to steal an election he lost. By the attempts of your party's state legislatures to shut down polliing locations and remove ballot drop boxes. By the very fact that Trump has said he will be a dictator on Day 1, has been given immunity for "official acts" and that he has the backing of the authors behind Project 2025. So yes, while the method in which Harris was nominated was a bit "shady" and did not adhere to a typical primary process, the two options on the ballot come November are not remotely the same. One will still represent the principles of democracy, regardless of any technicalities you want to bring up, and the other is a sheet stain on this country's history that has repeatedly wiped his fat orange ass with the constitution.
July 23, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, NOTW said: That is true, which myself and others have said. They could vote for someone else. My point was in this unique situation, they are using the same principle as the succession of in office, to apply it to the new election for their decision on what to do here. Not that voters have already voted for Harris in a 2024 primary. No one is saying that. But in considering voter desire, they did vote for Harris to be VP which means by default they approve her taking over if POTUS steps down while in office. It would be different if they said forget Harris, we're naming someone else random. Dem leaders discussed it internally for weeks and went public with support for Harris. The delegates will still officially nominate her at the convention. Democrats are not arguing anything is unfair or voters are being cheated. They simply are looking at the VP to step up as the new candidate and no one is disputing it. There's no controversy here. There's no breakdown of democratic process. There's nothing going against our Constitution. There have to be contingencies when a candidate drops out. If Biden had decided earlier, they could have officially had primaries where Harris could compete against others. At this point, the DNC is in a month. Hypothetically, if Biden had to step out one week before the general election, what would happen then? One month before? They would promote the VP. Rules and protocols usually have contingencies in place for emergencies and unique situations. It isn’t that hard to figure out for some folks. We have a few special posters here though.
July 23, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, NOTW said: That is true, which myself and others have said. They could vote for someone else. My point was in this unique situation, they are using the same principle as the succession of in office, to apply it to the new election for their decision on what to do here. Not that voters have already voted for Harris in a 2024 primary. No one is saying that. But in considering voter desire, they did vote for Harris to be VP which means by default they approve her taking over if POTUS steps down while in office. It would be different if they said forget Harris, we're naming someone else random. Dem leaders discussed it internally for weeks and went public with support for Harris. The delegates will still officially nominate her at the convention. Democrats are not arguing anything is unfair or voters are being cheated. They simply are looking at the VP to step up as the new candidate and no one is disputing it. There's no controversy here. There's no breakdown of democratic process. There's nothing going against our Constitution. There have to be contingencies when a candidate drops out. If Biden had decided earlier, they could have officially had primaries where Harris could compete against others. At this point, the DNC is in a month. Hypothetically, if Biden had to step out one week before the general election, what would happen then? One month before? They would promote the VP. Rules and protocols usually have contingencies in place for emergencies and unique situations. And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling.
July 23, 20241 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: No true scotsman fallacy. Look, I agree that the weight of that punch isn't quite as heavy as it would've been but you're acting like it can't be thrown at all, and you're just flat out wrong. The claims of saving democracy were born from the illegal and ill-fated attempts by your guy to steal an election he lost. By the attempts of your party's state legislatures to shut down polliing locations and remove ballot drop boxes. By the very fact that Trump has said he will be a dictator on Day 1, has been given immunity for "official acts" and that he has the backing of the authors behind Project 2025. So yes, while the method is which Harris was nominated was a bit "shady" and did not adhere to a typical primary process, the two options on the ballot come November are not remotely the same. One will still represent the principles of democracy, regardless of any technicalities you want to bring up, and the other is a OBJ on this country's history that has repeatedly wiped his fat orange ass with the constitution. Again, not my guy. Never voted for him and never will. My point is that the but Trumping and twisting what has happened does weaken the argument and it should.
July 23, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, BBE said: And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling. Biden could have stepped down the day before the election and if he then won Kamala Harris would become President. This ain’t that hard, my guy.
July 23, 20241 yr Just now, Dave Moss said: Biden could have stepped down the day before the election and if he then won Kamala Harris would become President. This ain’t that hard, my guy. Yes, because that is how general elections work.
July 23, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, BBE said: Again, not my guy. Never voted for him and never will. My point is that the but Trumping and twisting what has happened does weaken the argument and it should. So you think what happened over the last couple weeks is the same thing as living in a dictatorship despite the fact that the primary process isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and used to be run like this?
July 23, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, BBE said: And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling. What would have been the acceptable alternative in your mind once it was clear that there was no other option other than for Biden to drop out?
July 23, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, BBE said: Again, not my guy. Never voted for him and never will. You've defended him numerous times in the past. I think you were the guy who claimed Trump didn't coordinate the submission of false slates of electors and then when that was proven, you pivoted to it not being a big deal. Far more transparent than you let on. Quote My point is that the but Trumping and twisting what has happened does weaken the argument and it should. Not as much as you are implying or for the reasons you've brought up. But again I'll say that a lot is riding on how Biden addresses the nation tomorrow.
July 23, 20241 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: What would have been the acceptable alternative in your mind once it was clear that there was no other option other than for Biden to drop out? For him? If Biden stayed in and lost to Trump. The way he saw it as "not a Trump guy", it would've been the only way to preserve democracy.
July 23, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, BBE said: And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling. You're just changing your argument to something else now. I'm not even a Democrat, I'm as "both sides" as it gets and this is not a thing.
July 23, 20241 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: For him? If Biden stayed in and lost to Trump. The way he saw it as "not a Trump guy", it would've been the only way to preserve democracy. So then he would have been ok with four more years of Biden, a man clearly heading quickly into dementia?
July 23, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, BBE said: And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling. Look at those goalposts go! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
July 23, 20241 yr 7 hours ago, xBMTx said: Would be a smart choice, but never count on the Democrats to make an intelligent decision. The last 72 hours has been the finest moment for Democrats since early Obama. Mark Kelly is the guy all the pundits are putting as the font runner. Forgive me for donning a shade of optimism.
July 23, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: So then he would have been ok with four more years of Biden, a man clearly heading quickly into dementia? No, that wouldn't have worked. As is the case with all "Not Trump Supporters", the only way forward is with Trump winning. Then he could terminate the constitution and become dictator, which of course would save democracy.
July 23, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: So you think what happened over the last couple weeks is the same thing as living in a dictatorship despite the fact that the primary process isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and used to be run like this? It certainly is irregular to say the least. If a random poster on the EMB was able to correctly point out for some time now that Biden wouldn't make it to the finish line this election, certainly it was plain to see for those in the know at the DNC that Biden was not competent to run for, let alone serve in, high office. The Democratic party as an independent political party and is free to run its nominating process in the manner it sees fit. However, it's also the largest party in the U.S. and it is conducting this primary in a high handed, undemocratic manner. If the Democrats retain power this election cycle, get prepared to see your freedoms eroded.
July 23, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: No, that wouldn't have worked. As is the case with all "Not Trump Supporters", the only way forward is with Trump winning. Then he could terminated the constitution and become dictator, which of course would lead to fascism. Fyp
July 23, 20241 yr 11 minutes ago, BBE said: And who created the situation. It was evident Biden should not have run before the election, but any questioning of his fitness was "fake news-ed, or outright covered up". This was played out specifically this way and the big donors and party leaders swung the axe on Biden because of bad polling. You can overdose on red pills all you want, the argument is a fart in the wind. Democrats will easily bat this down with the explanation that dementia and old age can hit suddenly. he was fine 6 months ago, now he's not, wallah. And even worse for Trump, they can argue that Trump's on the verge of that same cliff.
July 23, 20241 yr Just now, Procus said: It certainly is irregular to say the least. If a random poster on the EMB was able to correctly point out for some time now that Biden wouldn't make it to the finish line this election, certainly it was plain to see for those in the know at the DNC that Biden was not competent to run for, serve in, high office. The Democratic party as an independent political party and is free to run its nominating process in the manner it sees fit. However, it's also the largest party in the U.S. and it is conducting this primary in a high handed, undemocratic manner. If the Democrats retain power this election cycle, get prepared to see your freedoms eroded. You may be old as sheet, Procus, but you've still got it buddy. Irregular Primary = no more freedom Guy who admits he wants to terminate the Constitution = all good
July 23, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, Diehardfan said: A lot of things existed in the 60s that changed for the better that doesn't mean we should go back. RFK Jr. would say them telling him any primary would be cancelled this year would be similar to the GOP in 2020. Wrong to do so? No, because they honestly didn't have a chance and it was a waste of money. That's different than unelected delegates picking someone. I'm not sure there is a better option at this point, but the difference here is the Dems knew he was failing. There is no way you can tell me they didn't know and that isn't why they decided to have a historically early debate in the middle of June. Worth fighting about or debating? Not really. But hypocrisy exists on both sides. I don't believe anything RFK says. Not only is he a certified loon, he's been caught colluding with the Trump campaign. Philips and Williamson were on the primary ballot when I went to go vote in the primary. So there was an open primary. I've already said in the Biden thread that it was irresponsible for Biden to run again when he was in such obvious mental decline. Older people who are in mental decline (I've seen it with my parents and my wife's parents) often deny their mental decline and insist they're still ok to drive or to live alone. It's up to those closest to them to level with them. No one seemed to do that. My opinion of Jill Biden has gone waaaaay down through this whole ordeal. I also said after the debate I thought he should resign the presidency. But doesn't really matter what I think. I just think the party, any party has a right to do what it wants. The republicans will likely run octogenarian Trump in another 4 years without any serious challengers. They have the right to do so and lose again.
July 23, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: The blowback I've seen was more so at the perception that Biden was pushed out by party elites and big money donors. They don't have anything against Harris as a candidate, they just seem upset about how it all went down. My guess / hope is that they get over it soon because we can't afford to squabble over stuff like this when Trump still looms over all of it. The perception is reality. He was absolutely pushed out. It was the right thing to do.
Create an account or sign in to comment