CottageHore Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Good. If you think this should be done in a non-Democratic way, meaning Kamala gets the nomination with no public say, you're trash. Kamala is obviously going to be the nominee, but there's absolutely no reason other candidates shouldn't get the chance to try and compete with or debate her. I'm so sick of the way our government gives no choice and no voice to the people. Our country is a joke. 1
shyboi Posted July 24 Posted July 24 3 minutes ago, CottageHore said: Good. If you think this should be done in a non-Democratic way, meaning Kamala gets the nomination with no public say, you're trash. Kamala is obviously going to be the nominee, but there's absolutely no reason other candidates shouldn't get the chance to try and compete with or debate her. I'm so sick of the way our government gives no choice and no voice to the people. Our country is a joke. 1
Mr. Mendes Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, CottageHore said: Good. If you think this should be done in a non-Democratic way, meaning Kamala gets the nomination with no public say, you're trash. Kamala is obviously going to be the nominee, but there's absolutely no reason other candidates shouldn't get the chance to try and compete with or debate her. I'm so sick of the way our government gives no choice and no voice to the people. Our country is a joke. 2 hours ago, shyboi said: The people did have their say. They had their say back during the primaries when they gave Biden-Harris the win again. Everyone who voted for Biden in the primaries was also casting a vote for Harris. You cannot remove the Vice President from the context they exist within which is becoming the President if the President has to resign or dies, or becoming the Presidential nominee if the President pulls from the race. This is the law. Nothing about this is illegal or against the rules. When you vote in a primary for an incumbent, you are explicitly endorsing whoever the VP is as a candidate as well. I really don't know how more plainly to put this to you lot. The people have said they're fine with this. They asked for this. It's not the DNC's fault if a small pocket fringe of people were being dumb and don't consider the VP when voting for an incumbent President whose chances of serving their entire four years should they win the election was next to zero. At the end of the day, everyone who is making a stink about this is just crying for attention. They finally see some hope and actual party unity and cannot stand it because there's unity behind someone who isn't their irrelevant fringe candidate who they score some sort of moral high ground points for selfishly throwing their vote away on. Edited July 24 by Mr. Mendes 5 1
CottageHore Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Mr. Mendes said: The people did have their say. They had their say back during the primaries when they gave Biden-Harris the win again. Everyone who voted for Biden in the primaries was also casting a vote for Harris. You cannot remove the Vice President from the context they exist within which is becoming the President if the President has to resign or dies, or becoming the Presidential nominee if the President pulls from the race. This is the law. Nothing about this is illegal or against the rules. When you vote in a primary for an incumbent, you are explicitly endorsing whoever the VP is as a candidate as well. I really don't know how more plainly to put this to you lot. The people have said they're fine with this. They asked for this. It's not the DNC's fault if a small pocket fringe of people were being dumb and don't consider the VP when voting for an incumbent President whose chances of serving their entire four years should they win the election was next to zero. At the end of the day, everyone who is making a stink about this is just crying for attention. They finally see some hope and actual party unity and cannot stand it because there's unity behind someone who isn't their irrelevant fringe candidate who they score some sort of moral high ground points for selfishly throwing their vote away on. Nobody used the words "illegal" or "rule breaking" but you. The point is that this is not being done democratically. It isn't. They intentionally waited until the very last minute to push Biden out, knowing no other candidate would have a chance getting on the ticket this late in the game especially with Kamala getting all of Biden's delegates. Had this happened months ago, other candidates would've had a more level chance to campaign, debate, and raise money so we the people could make a more informed and strong choice, even if that choice still ended up leading to Kamala as the nominee. A fair democratic process would allow for other candidates to debate Kamala and to have their moment in an open convention. Kamala has not referenced any plan she has to address the myriad main issues currently plaguing the American people (tax funding of Palestine, the exorbitant housing market, the economy, big oil, etc.). We don't know, at this exact point in time (not what Kamala claimed in 2019), what Kamala's plan is if she wins the presidency. She's spoken about why Trump sucks (as if we didn't already know), she's spoken on "all Joe and I did" over the last 4 years, as Marianne said. But we don't know who Kamala will be as our president and the only way to find that out is if we have other democratic candidates vying with her, debating her, schooling her on key questions. It's not about "Kamala will obviously win the nomination". It's about us knowing who tf Kamala "the nominee" is and what she will do for us as our president. Y'all are so obsessed with idolizing these politicians that you forget they work for US. They should answer to US and that doesn't stop just because Biden was being (forcibly) backed by voters months ago. That needs to continue. There's absolutely nothing bad that can come from letting the rest of the nomination process unfold in a democratic way. There is a lot of bad that will come from NOT doing this democratically, the worst being Trump winning and trust and believe- he will, so long as Kamala does not start postulating her plan for presidency. She's riding solely on hype right now and that **** will be dead by next week. Trump getting shot is already old news. Clever "Kamala is brat!" and Coconut Tree remix promotion is cute for a few days, but it holds no value come Election Day. At all. And that last paragraph is a whole lot of projection. Idk who you're referring to but it sure as hell ain't me. Kamala will get my vote if she's the nominee, but she does not deserve that nomination without it being earned through a truly democratic process. Some of y'all are so deluded by politician and party loyalty, it's shameful. Fight for the convention to be open or shut your damn mouth, respectfully. Edited July 24 by CottageHore 1 1
Danny789 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 6 minutes ago, CottageHore said: Nobody used the words "illegal" or "rule breaking" but you. The point is that this is not being done democratically. It isn't. They intentionally waited until the very last minute to push Biden out, knowing no other candidate would have a chance getting on the ticket this late in the game especially with Kamala getting all of Biden's delegates. Had this happened months ago, other candidates would've had a more level chance to campaign, debate, and raise money so we the people could make a more informed and strong choice, even if that choice still ended up leading to Kamala as the nominee. A fair democratic process would allow for other candidates to debate Kamala and to have their moment in an open convention. Kamala has not referenced any plan she has to address the myriad main issues currently plaguing the American people (tax funding of Palestine, the exorbitant housing market, the economy, big oil, etc.). We don't know, at this exact point in time (not what Kamala claimed in 2019), what Kamala's plan is if she wins the presidency. She's spoken about why Trump sucks (as if we didn't already know), she's spoken on "all Joe and I did" over the last 4 years, as Marianne said. But we don't know who Kamala will be as our president and the only way to find that out is if we have other democratic candidates vying with her, debating her, schooling her on key questions. It's not about "Kamala will obviously win the nomination". It's about us knowing who tf Kamala "the nominee" is and what she will do for us as our president. Y'all are so obsessed with idolizing these politicians that you forget they work for US. They should answer to US and that doesn't stop just because Biden was being (forcibly) backed by voters months ago. That needs to continue. There's absolutely nothing bad that can come from letting the rest of the nomination process unfold in a democratic way. There is a lot of bad that will come from NOT doing this democratically, the worst being Trump winning and trust and believe- he will, so long as Kamala does not start postulating her plan for presidency. She's riding solely on hype right now and that **** will be dead by next week. Trump getting shot is already old news. Clever "Kamala is brat!" and Coconut Tree remix promotion is cute for a few days, but it holds no value come Election Day. At all. Y'all are so deluded it concerns me. Fight for the convention to be open or shut your damn mouth, respectfully. Other candidates were and are still allowed to challenge Kamala, the democrats just decided not to. And with the record-breaking grassroots fundraising it's safe to say that the majority of Dem voters are ok with that. Did you not watch her speech today? She definitely laid down her plan in front of a very enthusiastic crowd in Wisconsin. Edited July 24 by Danny789 2 1
FOCK Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 3 hours ago, CottageHore said: Good. If you think this should be done in a non-Democratic way, meaning Kamala gets the nomination with no public say, you're trash. Kamala is obviously going to be the nominee, but there's absolutely no reason other candidates shouldn't get the chance to try and compete with or debate her. I'm so sick of the way our government gives no choice and no voice to the people. Our country is a joke. This. The people in here advocating against democracy. Are you well? If the concern is a candidate exposing how weak Kamala's policy and messaging is, that's on miss brat to actually do something about & earn the public's vote & support. A challenge/push from someone further left should always be welcomed. Edited July 24 by FOCK 1 1
Mariah4life Posted July 24 Posted July 24 She had a point until she started attacking Kamala. so uncalled for. Wait for your turn, don't sour the moment.
CottageHore Posted July 24 Posted July 24 7 hours ago, Danny789 said: Other candidates were and are still allowed to challenge Kamala, the democrats just decided not to. And with the record-breaking grassroots fundraising it's safe to say that the majority of Dem voters are ok with that. Did you not watch her speech today? She definitely laid down her plan in front of a very enthusiastic crowd in Wisconsin. Lol. This is literally the problem. Do you need your hand held while I walk you through this?
terrijoe Posted July 25 Posted July 25 (edited) its gonna be tough but rooting for her Edited July 25 by terrijoe
NausAllien Posted July 25 Posted July 25 She's very impressive. I may not agree with every position she has, but I think she's a woman of integrity and truly wants to help people. She's right. There should be a democratic process to pick the best candidate. Even if Kamala ends up winning the nomination, it would be more legitimate than simply being anointed for the sake of unity. She articulates clearly what I've been trying to say all along.
Mr. Mendes Posted July 25 Posted July 25 One day people are going to realize politics isn't about what they want, but rather the greater good. The greater good is being done. I'm sorry that greater good doesn't allow you to indulge in your selfish pleas for attention. 1 1
Mr. Mendes Posted July 25 Posted July 25 23 hours ago, FOCK said: This. The people in here advocating against democracy. Are you well? If the concern is a candidate exposing how weak Kamala's policy and messaging is, that's on miss brat to actually do something about & earn the public's vote & support. A challenge/push from someone further left should always be welcomed. They're free to challenge her if they want. No one is stopping Marriane from running her campaign. But don't cry about her not getting enough delegates and call it undemocratic because the vast majority of voters have demonstrated multiple times now that they do not want her.
terrijoe Posted July 25 Posted July 25 2 hours ago, Mr. Mendes said: One day people are going to realize politics isn't about what they want, but rather the greater good. The greater good is being done. I'm sorry that greater good doesn't allow you to indulge in your selfish pleas for attention. cringe. Complacent brainless zombie rot mentality is why we are where we are. Not you regurgitating any and all The View talking point. Let me guess we cannot have more then two parties bc its literally impossible. 1
Mr. Mendes Posted July 25 Posted July 25 9 hours ago, terrijoe said: cringe. Complacent brainless zombie rot mentality is why we are where we are. Not you regurgitating any and all The View talking point. Let me guess we cannot have more then two parties bc its literally impossible. No, it's not impossible at all. I welcome it becoming a 3+ party system. However, it takes time to do that. It isn't going to happen in this election cycle. And considering what's at stake this election, this is not the one to begin the unravelling process. There's too many lives on the line to be doing this. Vote Democrat, and once that's done and we've kept a fascist from getting in and enacting legislation that will ruin the lives of women, trans people, immigrants, people of color, and the unhealthy, then we can have the conversation of how to properly introduce a third party. For once, be selfless. Think of the people who don't have the privilege in their lives to go third party this election. I repeat: this isn't about you as an individual, it's about everyone. If you actually cared what happens to those who are disadvantaged in this country, then this wouldn't be an argument. 1
terrijoe Posted July 25 Posted July 25 6 hours ago, Mr. Mendes said: No, it's not impossible at all. I welcome it becoming a 3+ party system. However, it takes time to do that. It isn't going to happen in this election cycle. And considering what's at stake this election, this is not the one to begin the unravelling process. There's too many lives on the line to be doing this. Vote Democrat, and once that's done and we've kept a fascist from getting in and enacting legislation that will ruin the lives of women, trans people, immigrants, people of color, and the unhealthy, then we can have the conversation of how to properly introduce a third party. For once, be selfless. Think of the people who don't have the privilege in their lives to go third party this election. I repeat: this isn't about you as an individual, it's about everyone. If you actually cared what happens to those who are disadvantaged in this country, then this wouldn't be an argument. Im not reading all that, whoppi Goldberg's The View fan.
raisetheroof Posted July 25 Posted July 25 (edited) On 7/24/2024 at 4:12 AM, CottageHore said: Good. If you think this should be done in a non-Democratic way, meaning Kamala gets the nomination with no public say, you're trash. Kamala is obviously going to be the nominee, but there's absolutely no reason other candidates shouldn't get the chance to try and compete with or debate her. I'm so sick of the way our government gives no choice and no voice to the people. Our country is a joke. The process was open, no (serious) candidate simply emerged. Why would any serious 2028 candidate like Newsom, Whitmer, Pritzker, Warnock, what have you, decide to get in the race with only a few months left to build up a campaign machinery, gather funds, and develop nationwide name-recognition with the Democrats trailing in all polls, when you could just let Kamala lose (as all reliable polling was showing still a few days back) and contest the candidacy in 2028? Not to even mention that, at this stage, contesting the candidacy would require a sh*tton of work, networking with delegates and traveling the country in the span of less than 2 weeks before the DNC nomination takes place. Moreover, challenging Kamala would have fractured the party (Kennedy challenging Carter is still very fresh in the minds of many democrats) and would have likely guaranteed a Trump victory in November, whether the candidate was Kamala or someone else. Especially since stepping over Kamala would have likely dissuaded black voters, especially black women, who are the political core of the Democrats. I don't understand why people are so wound up about the way Kamala ascended into the candidacy. No one serious was going to challenge her at this point, no matter how much the DNC would have encouraged such challenges or tried to facilitate them. As a second matter, in most democratic nations (even those ranking as far more democratic than the US) nominating candidates is a party process, not a public process where people vote. The delegates in those party processes, as in the DNC, are usually party representatives or local lawmakers who have also been elected by people. It's called representative democracy. People need to stop crying about it and get behind Kamala. She's miles better than Biden and lightyears better than Trump. Edited July 25 by raisetheroof 1
shyboi Posted November 7 Posted November 7 2 minutes ago, Johnny Cash said: Very interesting to read this now Exactly this, veeeeeryyyy interesting
Mean Trees Posted November 7 Posted November 7 She's a zionist (like Kamala obv) and she believes Haitian voodoo is real. She's not serious.
Recommended Posts