Messages

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

Wow, you guys. I dare someone, anyone, who supports Kamala Harris to respond to this.

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

BLM are basing their objection on the lack of primary vote, based on that quote. Not her fitness to do the job in general based on who she slept with years ago.
If this is a procedural issue, then that's fair enough. If the Democrats have missed out a necessary step in appointing her, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. This quote alone does not imply the issue is with Harris herself.

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

I'll take your dare, although you might be sorry I did, lol. I would have responded sooner, but there are only so many threads one can respond to in a given time. Unfortunately, Fanstory is quite low on my list of priorities when allocating my limited time (that could change, though).

Are you really interested in having an honest discussion about this, though. I seem to recall that in the past you have been quite critical of BLM. In fact, I seem to remember a comment you made that was quite extreme. This probably isn't verbatim, but it went something like this:

Either:

"My friends (or some of my friends) and I think BLM is a terrorist organization.."

or

"My friends (or some of my friends) think BLM is a terrorist organization."

Again, I am paraphrasing, so don't hold me to the exact wording. The key point is the part about BLM being terrorists, or a terrorist group.

So, if this reflects how you feel about them, then it hard to understand how you would consider any statement from them credible.

So which is it, do you consider BLM to be a credible organization whose thoughts matter and should be considered by ALL?

For instance, following is a quote from the BLM website posted on June 17:


"Inspired by—and as a continuation of the radical work of those who came before us—we are demanding a complete dismantling of oppressive systems. We are advocating for defunding the police and reallocating those resources to community-led safety and support systems. We are pushing for policies that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, from healthcare and education to housing and economic revolution. Our present-day rebuilding efforts also focus on celebrating and preserving Black culture. We recognize the power of art, literature, and music as tools of resistance and rebuilding. By uplifting Black voices and stories, we are reclaiming our narrative and asserting our place in the world."


So, do you agree with this quote, or is it just this one statement about Kamala that you agree with, because it is self-serving?

Regardless, I don't see what the big deal is. That statement reflects the views of one person or a group of people within BLM. I am sure not everyone within the organization agrees.

It is just an opinion and maybe they issued the statement because they prefer a different candidate, such as Cory Booker or Tammy Duckworth.

Regarding the issue itself, I am not aware of anything in the Constitution that spells out how a party's presidential nominee must be selected. And this is clearly an extenuating circumstance in which time doesn't allow for the usual process. In addition, I am not aware of any candidate who has announced that they intend to run against Kamala. So, how do you have a primary vote with only one candidate???

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

This is a statement from Brookings Institute:

" Contrary to some criticisms, this is not an undemocratic process. All delegates to the convention are elected. The so-called "super delegates"—governors, senators, and representatives—have been elected by millions of people. The remaining delegates have been elected in their congressional districts in open caucuses. We let our elected representatives vote on our taxes and vote to send our young people to war. Elected delegates can surely vote to replace a nominee of their party. The Democrats don’t need to pass an elaborate set of new rules. They simply need to follow the rules that the Convention Rules Committee has passed and proceed to choose a nominee. Time is of the essence."

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

And from PBS news hour:

"There is no legal problem here whatsoever," Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina constitutional law professor, told PolitiFact. "The timing does not present any legal or constitutional problems. The Democratic nominee has not become official yet, ballot deadlines in states have not been violated in any way, and the rules of the convention are fully intact and in force."

Johnson’s office told PolitiFact that there could be potential legal challenges, including in Ohio and Michigan. His office also said that some states have rules that could require delegates to vote for their affiliated candidate. Legal experts told us that those states include Arizona and Illinois.

But even if that’s so, it’s unclear that would prevent the Democrats from approving the nominee of their choice at the convention, experts said.

Biden was not yet the official nominee
Multiple election law experts told PolitiFact that Democrats are legally secure in switching out Biden between now and the convention period, which runs from Aug. 19 to Aug. 22 in Chicago.

A key reason why the Democrats’ actions are not "unlawful" is that Biden is not yet officially the nominee and isn’t on any ballots.

Typically, state rules say that after a political convention or another process, the party will transmit the name of its presidential nominee by a certain date so that states can print the name on ballots.

When Biden dropped out, he was only the presumptive nominee — not the official nominee. That means he had more than enough pledged delegates to win the convention’s first ballot.

The nomination will officially be voted on either shortly before or during the convention itself. Unless a major Democratic figure mounts a serious challenge — which did not appear to happen within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement — the president’s endorsement of Harris will likely carry the day with delegates.

"The Democrats do not need to (switch the name on the ballot) because Biden was not the Democratic nominee," said Rebecca Green, a law professor at the College of William & Mary. "Since the Democratic National Convention has not yet happened, there is no legal basis for challenge. The process for selecting the Democratic nominee will now follow party rules in place."

Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley also argued against claims that the Democrats’ procedure is undemocratic. During the primaries, voters expressed their preferences for delegates who, although they were stated supporters of a given candidate, have some leeway under party rules on how to vote when nomination ballots are counted. Under party rules, delegates can decide not to back the candidate they represent if "in all good conscience" they feel they cannot support them.

"These primary votes don’t choose the party’s nominee directly," Foley said. "Both parties have rules for what happens if a candidate withdraws from the race before the nominating convention, no matter what happens."

That should put the issue to rest. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party
Message edited:

---

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

There's not really much option though, is there? Your election is in November. I don't know how quickly you can get a primary vote together and there isn't a lot of point if there isn't anyone else coming forward as Banana says.
It's not like you have a revolving door of candidates. It doesn't really matter if she wasn't voted in at this stage, you'll all get a say in November, and unless the Dems have some brilliant masterstroke up their sleeves, it 's not going to matter who they put in at this late stage. I think Trump's going to get in again.

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party
Message edited:

---

RE: BLM rebels against the Democratic Party

---

Glad to hear you say you don't think he will win, as it seems to be being touted as inevitable, especially after the conference Gloria was waxing lyrical over.