2
Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson calls for open convention: 'We will win'
(midmichigannow.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
2 points (51.2% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3474 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There needs to be an open convention. NO one voted for Harris as President, assuming the job is hers is usurping the democratic election process. I could have sworn we were told we need to elect a democrat to preserve democracy
The party candidate selection process has nothing to do with Democracy.
The parties themselves have nothing to do with democracy. There's nothing in the constitution about Democrats or Republicans, or their parties.
All the parties are is a group of people that agree to put one name forward for their candidate. How they choose the candidate is entirely up to them, it didn't used to be done via state wide primaries, it used to just be a bunch of old dudes at a convention picking someone.
The democracy part is that anyone is allowed to put their name on the ballot for president if they meet the basic criteria, usually a minimum number of voter signatures and a filing fee. This is done for each state they want their name to be on the ballot for.
I mean, that's not entirely true: the Democrats and Republicans have privileged positions with regards to ballot access, debate planning, etc.
If the parties were truly private organizations, there would be no such thing as primaries, let alone ones administered by the state government on their behalf.
That's not to say I agree with the disinformation trolls, though: right now is very much not the time to bitch about the system because that only serves to help the fascists.
You are legally correct, and morally wrong. If we had ranked choice voting it would be an entirely different situation.
As long as we are trapped in a two party system this is entirely unacceptable and frankly just cause for revolution.
I find it both hilarious and infuriating how supporters of the Democratic establishment make this argument when it suits them, then turn around and chastise third party voters. If our only real choice is to vote for one party or the other, then we either have control over who gets nominated or we live in a thinly veiled oligarchy.
They aren’t morally wrong. Just because something is a fact that they’re stating doesn’t mean they agree with it. Those are the rules of the game and they’re simply stating them.
In the context they are offering a legalistic justification to a moral issue. The Democrats are not the party of democracy if they don't, at a minimum, have an open convention.
Mate, there isn’t enough time or words to even delve into this with you, but that’s not what morality is. Whether you agree with the current rules and legal system or not is not part of your morals when you’re simply stating the options legally.
LOL, yeah. You definitely don't have the words. I'm guessing you haven't studied much moral philosophy. If it helps, I didn't accuse them of being immoral themselves.
This is not the time for electoral reform. This is the time for voting. The only thing that will keep the orange sludge out of the White House at this point is unity.
After this dumpster fire is over, please advocate for reform.
...to see why it's not yet the time for reform then, either.
Because at this time a big argument for reform would steal the air out of what is the most critical election since the 1960s.
Yup. And once this election has passed, there will be a new reason that it's not the time for reform.
I'd be more worried about a Trump administration if I were you.
I was wondering if it would go away, but no. Anything but strict unthinking adherence to neoliberal orthodoxy is still met with accusations of wanting Trump to win.
Not sure what you're implying, but for the record I'm certain that you are anti-Trump.
Nowadays there appears to be no room for simple disagreement. One must always be an agent of some kind.
Another point I should make is that your instinct that Democratic unity is critical to winning this election is exactly on point. However, the idea that reformers are obligated to make all the concessions before debate even begins is establishment standard operating procedure. These are not only the best moments to advance reform, they are the only moments.
We got all the same criticisms in 2020 (and 2016 and 2012...), but I'm pretty confident in saying that the Biden presidency benefited greatly from the pressures brought in 2020. We elected the furthest right Democrat of the past 50 years (by legislative record) and got the most progressive president of the past 50 years.
We also got the same criticisms way back in last week (and last month, and last year) when arguing that Biden should drop out.
All I can say that the country's attention span is tightly limited. Focus on reform right now you will take the air out of a wafer thin possibility of a Dem win. If you fail, how much reform are you going to get from a Trump government? About a cap full of warm piss worth.
Yes, reform is badly needed. Of course it is, but the house is actually on fire right now. Can't you see that? Flames and everything, with the supreme court, project 2025 and a Trump administration about to possibly enact martial law? A protracted conversation about complex administrative, legal and electoral changes - all of which will be challenged and lied about by the other side, will bring tears.
Anyway I'm done with the argument. But if it all goes pearshape, the reform purest will be the ones who will have detailed the tottering election.
Of course I see that! The house is on fire precisely because Democrats have failed to reform. If I might stretch your analogy, there are mad arsonists running around the house throwing molotov cocktails everywhere. Maybe we need to address the question of why these fires keep happening.
You "establishment purists" are insufferable.
Ok, start your reform with all fifty states, because they are the ones who control Federal elections. Yes, reform the red states too. Should be easy. Go ahead, knock yourselves out. Enjoy. Let the house burn to the ground while you run around getting petitions signed which will be ignored by the state assemblies.
Jebus Christo...
What the fuck are you talking about? All I've called for here is an open convention. Fuck, even Obama is behind that. It's going to be a farce since the fix is in for Kamala, but a farce is better than nothing. Fuckin-a it's amazing how some people think demanding a sliver of Democracy from the party literally running on saving Democracy is somehow a radical purist position.
And no, the states don't control primaries. They have authority to do a lot, but almost everything wrong with the Democratic primary system is directly addressable by the Democratic party(s) themselves. But that's pretty irrelevant this cycle because the Democrats already stole that from us. The reform stance is that it be acknowledged and addressed for next time. An open convention is a tiny step in that direction.
By all means, have your convention. Who gives a fuck? Talkfests are what's it about.
I would say you might lead with the convention point up front. "Remorm" as a word is mighty board.
Anyway, chill. This is a long road.
I'm pretty certain that "remorm" isn't a word at all. If you mean "reform" then you might want to look back at who brought that word into the conversation. Keep your mighty board.
I apologise for the spelling. On holidays, glasses not handy.
I keep my mighty board.
The typo wasn't as big an issue as criticizing me for a word choice that you made.
It's all good.
Wait until the Democrats haven't maneuvered us into yet another crisis moment? No, I don't think I'll do that. I'm well past 50 and haven't seen an election yet that wasn't the most existential of my lifetime. Can't wait to see what comes after Trump. I will advocate for reform always and especially in the moments when people are paying attention to politics.
The thing is, she's as close as you can get to an elected candidate in this circumstance. An "open" convention doesn't mean everyone gets to vote, it means the relatively smaller set of die hard party members get to ignore their primary voters and decide what they want to do.
The only presidential candidate that won the votes was Biden. He then chose Harris as a running mate, which meant the general population voted for her to be the president if a man in his 80s has to step down.
Yes might have been better for him to have stepped aside before the primaries, but he we are, with the VP being the only choice people plausibly got to vote on.
Given the evident consensus, an open convention will yield Harris as the nominee.
Cool. Let's have an open convention then.
I'm fine with Harris winning at the convention - I'm not fine with the DNC coronating her beforehand.
Oh, I agree. And given Harris' statement about wanting to win the nomination, I think that's where it's going.
We literally did vote for Harris to be president. That's the main job of the vice president.
You miss the part where many democrats are so terrified of the image that has been painted of Trump that they would vote for a resurrected Hitler if they were told he was wearing a blue button.
Democrats didn't paint that image. Trump did.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
How interesting. So when trump tells you he will fight for democracy, you believe him. What a confusing world you must be living in.
That's not what I said, and don't put words in my mouth.
It's not what he says he'll do, it's what he says he is. He is a petty dictator who can't stomach dissent or disagreement who will happily use anyone to further his own ends, and will happily take whatever interpretation of reality puts him on top, even if it means intentionally misreading and misinterpreting things.
But I don't have to tell you that. You seem to be quite well-versed in that technique yourself.
The Democrats are telling me that they are an oligarchy that only cares about keeping power.
One of these two will have power in November. That is reality. The democrats are the lesser of two evils. People living in reality don't have the luxury of choosing non-existent options, and have to pick from what is possible.
With one hand your ignorance can cover the sky. How impressive! Now talk to me about EMTALA, or Griswold, or Obergefell—and we're not even touching the thrilling possibilities of executive action. People who are paying attention (and aren't straight white men devoid of empathy) are taking this seriously. Maybe you should investigate why.
The side calling 100k+ dead foreign brown kids a "single issue" is so much more empathetic than the evil white man pointing out how awful it is. Cirque du soleil may have an opening for their new mental themed acrobatics show if you are interested.
Okay. What is your plan to stop it? Omit the magic beans. I have allergies.
Lay it out step by step.
As soon as they started using our bombs and tax money to blow up safety camps for displaced citizens, we should have quit giving them everything they asked for. If we must, we should be lending them money, not straight giving them billions in free bombs. That would be the simplest start. It is clear they are way beyond selPalestine.
I find it very hard to believe that the most peaceful president in nearly everyone's lifetimes is going to go nuking palestine. I know there's a bunch of people who are convinced he is, I just don't buy it.
This is not a plan.
We know what is happening in Palestine is an atrocity. Who stops the sale of arms and bombs. How do we get them into office? Outline how this works practically. What levers of power are we throwing to get the result we want? Be specific.
Just saying because we should stop selling is cheap. 1/3 of the cointry doesn't care, another 1/3 likes the genocide. How do we outmaneuver them?
Because not voting blue, and not having anything more concrete than 'because we shouldn't' doesn't save a single Palestinian but comes with the doorprize of 10 year olds forced to have their rapist's baby, and open season on trans people, blank checks to corpos, the end of public schools, etc. Performative morality is a blight.
Why are you lying? Trump's position on Israel is that it should "finish the job" [of genociding the Palestinians].