The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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

    1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,

    2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,

    3. 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.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.