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.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days 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
      2 days 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
        ·
        2 days 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
          ·
          2 days 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
            ·
            2 days 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.

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

              It’s not vague though.

              It is absolutely vague because it is a generalization with no specifics at all. Without any actual quotes, it is completely impossible to judge your claim. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said, not just to know if there is anything at all there but also to know how serious of a problem it would be. Specific details if they did actually exist would show us not only a smoking gun but who fired the gun and how much damage they did with the gun and if any other people carried guns. Those details would be enormously important. It’s true that if a former DNC chairman had incriminating quotes it would only directly implicate her. But a reporter would certainly want to ask the present DNC chairman if they agreed. And if the wrong answer was given, they would need to be fired.

              I quoted it,

              You gave absolutely no quotes from anybody in the DNC or their employee. Vague accusations are worthless

              you moved the goalposts and said I needed the long-form version like some birthe

              No ‘goalpost’ was moved. OF COURSE we need the specific details to judge whether vague claims are valid or not. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said. Any idiot can go around making vague claims. If actual incriminating quotes existed then how come Putin’s propaganda never provided them to you in all this time? With all the people like you that are desperate to find actual evidence do you really think that if any actual quotes existed – and which would be available in the public record for anybody to find – that Putin’s 50 billion dollars spent on intelligence services would not have already found those quotes and already made them widely available on the internet to people who are extremely eager to believe The Narrative?

              I told you before. Find the details to prove your case. Or waste time looking for quotes that do not exist because if they did exist, then not only would you already know about them, but everybody else would already know about them. I would already know about them. But look at it this way. If you did find actual incriminating quotes, that would make you a huge hero to all the people on the internet who want that incriminating evidence, and which Putin’s $50 billion intelligence service was not unable to find.