Black Live Matter making demands of the DNC

[JerryAU 1,822]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/black-lives-matter-demands-dnc-host-virtual-primary/ar-BB1qtONB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=9fae1540a2ae479ba466f93471cf1790&ei=24

[JerryAU 1,822]

Just now, JerryAU said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/black-lives-matter-demands-dnc-host-virtual-primary/ar-BB1qtONB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=9fae1540a2ae479ba466f93471cf1790&ei=24

I'm happy to see an organization hold the DNC's feet to the fire.  

[AU9377 5,924]

54 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

I'm happy to see an organization hold the DNC's feet to the fire.  

They want to waste money is what I am hearing.  They will get over it.

[JerryAU 1,822]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

They want to waste money is what I am hearing.  They will get over it.

Should they just "get over it?"

They are voters that comprise a large contingent of Democrats.  They have every right to demand transparency and call for the democratic process of nominating their candidate.  The article states they feel manipulated by the Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors who muscled out Joe Biden and anointed Harris and an unknown VP in his place without a primary vote by the public. 

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Just now, JerryAU said:

Should they just "get over it?"

They are voters that comprise a large contingent of Democrats.  They have every right to demand transparency and call for the democratic process of nominating their candidate.  The article states they feel manipulated by the Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors who muscled out Joe Biden and anointed Harris and an unknown VP in his place without a primary vote by the public. 

BLM just wants to find a way to stay relevant.  There's no practical way to do what they're asking.

[JerryAU 1,822]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

BLM just wants to find a way to stay relevant.  There's no practical way to do what they're asking.

I agree, even though I fully understand the BLM stance on this issue. 

They are group that hates elitists and the idea being overlooked and bulldozed by elite factions of our society.  Right now, they feel their own party took away their voice and they have no recourse other than to exercise their rights to vote for who they want in power.  Their own party shoved out the POTUS and installed Harris + whomever the party chooses for her running mate. The D-Party expects everyone to just fall in line and back the delegates that have been chosen to replace Biden. 

That others find it easy to step in line and accept the manipulation of any political party without raising an issue of the nomination process is disturbing. 

[TitanTiger 21,068]

If they believe the DNC is violating their own party rules or some election laws, then they should file suit to stop the process.  What they want is not relevant or feasible. People in hell want ice water. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

[homersapien 12,172]

5 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

I agree, even though I fully understand the BLM stance on this issue. 

They are group that hates elitists and the idea being overlooked and bulldozed by elite factions of our society.  Right now, they feel their own party took away their voice and they have no recourse other than to exercise their rights to vote for who they want in power.  Their own party shoved out the POTUS and installed Harris + whomever the party chooses for her running mate. The D-Party expects everyone to just fall in line and back the delegates that have been chosen to replace Biden.

Maybe they should join the MAGAs.  At least then, MAGAs might stop obsessing over them.

Edited July 23 by homersapien

[JerryAU 1,822]

Just now, homersapien said:

Maybe they should join the MAGAs.  At least then they might stop obsessing over them.

They are expected to step in line, tow the party line and put their full weight and support behind whoever the party chooses to place on the ticket.  Asking to have a voice, to exercise their right to nominate who they want on the ticket is too much I suppose. 

[homersapien 12,172]

1 minute ago, JerryAU said:

They are expected to step in line, tow the party line and put their full weight and support behind whoever the party chooses to place on the ticket.  Asking to have a voice, to exercise their right to nominate who they want on the ticket is too much I suppose. 

Sorry, don't understand.  Who's "They"?

Assuming you mean BLM, perhaps it is too much to ask a "radical, racist, group that hates America" - as Republicans characterize them - to exert influence on the party.

Pick a position and stick with it. You apparently can't decide who to throw shade at, BLM or Democrats.

[cbo 8,556]

22 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

They are expected to step in line, tow the party line and put their full weight and support behind whoever the party chooses to place on the ticket.  Asking to have a voice, to exercise their right to nominate who they want on the ticket is too much I suppose. 

I agree with you. It is a perfectly reasonable request to allow voters a say in nominating their candidate. It probably isn't practical and it definitely won't happen, but I don't know why the concept would be controversial. 

[AUDub 11,784]

6 minutes ago, cbo said:

I agree with you. It is a perfectly reasonable request to allow voters a say in nominating their candidate. It probably isn't practical and it definitely won't happen, but I don't know why the concept would be controversial. 

That’s what the delegates are for.

People understand the concept of a ticket. 

[Leftfield 3,310]

7 minutes ago, cbo said:

I agree with you. It is a perfectly reasonable request to allow voters a say in nominating their candidate. It probably isn't practical and it definitely won't happen, but I don't know why the concept would be controversial. 

It's not that it's controversial, it's that it's unworkable. There is simply not enough time to organize and hold another primary.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

There is simply not enough time to organize and hold another primary.

And whose fault would that be?  Another decision by indecision.

[cbo 8,556]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It's not that it's controversial, it's that it's unworkable. There is simply not enough time to organize and hold another primary.

Understand and agree. Just surprised at the flippant attitude from the thread (not you). These are unusual circumstances that clearly aren't ideal. I can understand the frustration from Dem voters. 

[Leftfield 3,310]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And whose fault would that be?  Another decision by indecision.

Right? Because Trump handled having to step down so much better.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

Just now, Leftfield said:

Right? Because Trump handled having to step down so much better.

Who is talking about Trump in a thead about Democrat voters not having a say?  Keep up.  The Republicans had a primary and picked their candidate by the rules.   The Dems are now *creating* a process to select (not elect) their candidate because the original one is losing.

[AUDub 11,784]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who is talking about Trump in a thead about Democrat voters not having a say?  Keep up.  The Republicans had a primary and picked their candidate by the rules.   The Dems are now *creating* a process to select (not elect) their candidate because the original one is losing.

“Creating a process” that’s, you know, been on paper for years. 

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

“Creating a process” that’s, you know, been on paper for years. 

There was that time in 1968 where there was an open convention because LBJ bowed out of the race before the primaries, so there were no delegates assigned to him.  This year is a little different as, interestingly enough, Joe set up a debate between the two primary winners before the primaries.  

When was this *process* written?  You know, when the primary winner would step down weeks before the convention and all the delegate votes would be assigned to someone of their choosing.  Or is it just convinent that the VP was on the ticket and no other challengers stepped forward?

[AUDub 11,784]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There was that time in 1968 where there was an open convention because LBJ bowed out of the race before the primaries, so there were no delegates assigned to him.  This year is a little different as, interestingly enough, Joe set up a debate between the two primary winners before the primaries.  

When was this *process* written?  You know, when the primary winner would step down weeks before the convention and all the delegate votes would be assigned to someone of their choosing.  Or is it just convinent that the VP was on the ticket and no other challengers stepped forward?

Decades ago. They had a contingency if for some reason a candidate either dies, couldn’t continue the race or withdraws

It’s unprecedented but it’s been there.

here are their current bylaws last amended in 2022.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DNC-Charter-Bylaws-03.12.2022.pdf

[Leftfield 3,310]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who is talking about Trump in a thead about Democrat voters not having a say?  Keep up.  The Republicans had a primary and picked their candidate by the rules.   The Dems are now *creating* a process to select (not elect) their candidate because the original one is losing.

We were talking about the process. You brought up Biden, who is irrelevant to the process. 

What do you think the chances are that this process was just created out of thin air just a few days ago? You may have never thought about these contingencies, but I'm certain the Parties have.

Ah, your go to phrase of "keep up." Where would you be without it? Other than still incapable of abstract thought?

Edited July 23 by Leftfield

[AUDub 11,784]

By the way practically everyone here thinks the BLM “organization” sucks. 

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You brought up Biden, who is irrelevant to the process. 

I didnt utter the man’s name.  You are making things up as usual.

17 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

What do you think the chances are that this process was just created out of thin air just a few days ago?

Who knows?  Obama seems to think they will be navigating uncharted waters.

 

I guess you assume the DNC is above board in all aspects.

[AU9377 5,924]

2 hours ago, JerryAU said:

Should they just "get over it?"

They are voters that comprise a large contingent of Democrats.  They have every right to demand transparency and call for the democratic process of nominating their candidate.  The article states they feel manipulated by the Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors who muscled out Joe Biden and anointed Harris and an unknown VP in his place without a primary vote by the public. 

There is one group trying their best to make this non issue an issue.  That would be the Trump campaign.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

33 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Decades ago. They had a contingency if for some reason a candidate either dies, couldn’t continue the race or withdraws

It’s unprecedented but it’s been there.

here are their current bylaws last amended in 2022.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DNC-Charter-Bylaws-03.12.2022.pdf

I looked through that and could only see a catch all phrase about we get to do what we want because we make the rules.

Section 2. The National Convention shall adopt permanent rules governing the conduct of its business at the beginning of each Convention, and until the adoption of such permanent rules, the Convention and the activities attendant thereto shall be governed by temporary rules set forth in the Call to the National Convention.