'Babbling' and 'hoarse': Biden's debate performance sends Democrats into a panic(www.nbcnews.com)

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world

-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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

btaf45@lemmy.world

0 points

5 months ago

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world

1 point

5 months ago

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.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News