feddit.org

18 points

5 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.

report

[ - ]

btaf45@lemmy.world

-1 points

5 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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 months ago

Centrists gaslight when they know they’re wrong.

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

report

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

[ - ]

btaf45@lemmy.world

1 point

5 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.

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.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

5 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.

report

[ - ]

btaf45@lemmy.world

1 point

5 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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 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.

report