What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

The process of selecting the Democratic nominee wasn't rigged. The delegates voted. They could have voted for anyone. They voted for Harris. Republican delegates voted for trump. They could have voted for anyone. That's what happened in 2020 (except the Democratic delegates voted for Biden that time)

Some idiots think the election was rigged by/for Kamala. If the idiots are correct then I look forward to watching the trials that are sure to take place in courtrooms in the upcoming years just like the fake elector trials that are taking place from trump actually trying to rig an election.

Kamala Harris won the consent of the governed. The delegates are governed. It's not a direct democracy to choose the nominee. There are these middlemen called delegates.
Just like the electoral college. My vote doesn't count. It's not a direct democracy. There are these middle men called electors. Only the vote of the electors count. The electors are governed.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I've misrepresented nothing and I know you are bright enough to see it. When Biden chose to withdraw his name, there was more than enough time to do a quick mini-primary. There was enough time for the people have a say in who would be atop the ticket. A decision was made to not allow the people to have a voice in that decision. I'm not saying you like it, but I am saying you see it. For the first time in the modern era of the United States, the voice of the governed had no say in the selection process of one of the major party candidates. You may not like the word 'illegitimate', but in the context of the consent of the governed the word is apt. Kamala Harris has not won the consent of the governed. Insofar as the type of social contract theory our nation is built around where the governed should have consent, Kamala Harris is illegitimate. The process that put her there was rigged.
Click to expand...
I'm going to tell you a story about something else that was completely rigged.

See, I went to the grocery store and I bought all the products I wanted and didn't buy anything I didn't want. So, by your definition my shopping trip was "rigged" because I selected exactly what I wanted, which is my privilege to do since they are my groceries.

The DNC picks their candidate via delegates. These delegates can vote for whomever they want, but have, by custom, not by law, selected the person who got the most votes. In this situation that was not possible so the DNC decided how the DNC was going to handle DNC business. Completely legitimate.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The American people also voted, and all who voted chose someone else. Kamala got zero votes in the primary and won a rigged delegate vote where the delegates were "faithless" to the electorate.

en.wikipedia.org

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I've had you off ignore for less than a week...

Why are you lying about this? You KNOW that you're misleading idiots and fooling no one else.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
With all due respect, I think you are confusing legal with legitimate. What the DNC did was legal but that doesn't make Kamala legitimate. I argue that it is the consent of the governed that bestows legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we'll find out if she is legitimate in a little over a week from now.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The American people also voted, and all who voted chose someone else. Kamala got zero votes in the primary and won a rigged delegate vote where the delegates were "faithless" to the electorate.

en.wikipedia.org

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Delegates don't have to be faithful to the electorate. That is where you are confused. In this case they couldn't be faithful to the electorate since that candidate no longer existed. That is another thing you are confused about. I'm sorry that you are so confused.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I believe government should have the consent of the governed or it is not legitimate.
Click to expand...
Yep, your beliefs aren't factual. We understand that.

If the electorate voted for me to be the nominee but I didn't want to be the nominee (just like Biden didn't) then there is no way to have the consent of the governed. Can't force me (or Biden) to be the presidential nominee.

Also, the delegates are governed. They consented. So the government had the consent of the governed in this case anyway. You can rejoice now because you got what you wanted. A legitimate candidate voted for by the governed!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
LogGrad98 said:
Yep. Apparently she stole the election away from Biden, so all she does is steal elections, so obviously she is going to steal the election next month too.
Click to expand...
Republicans never face legitimate opponents. When they lose, it’s because they’re cheated. Even in 2008, they didn’t lose. They were cheated out by a black guy who didn’t even have a valid birth certificate. Only one party should ever rule America.
 
One thing I hope for is that after Donald loses here in a week, a lot of these no nothing morons who think politics and history began in 2016 find something else to bitch about. Politics should be boring. Hopefully they find hobbies, god, porn, or drugs. Just something to do in your parents’ basement other than pretending to know anything about history or politics.
 
Plans….

www.propublica.org

“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda

Private videos reveal Trump adviser Russ Vought’s “shadow” plans for using the military on protesters, defunding the EPA and villainizing civil servants.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org

Reporting Highlights​

  • “In Trauma”: A key Trump adviser says a Trump administration will seek to make civil servants miserable in their jobs.
  • Military: In private speeches, he laid out plans to use armed forces to quell any domestic “riots.”
  • 1776 and 1860: He likened the country’s moment to those fractious periods in American history.
A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term.

In private speeches delivered in 2023 and 2024, Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, described his work crafting legal justifications so that military leaders or government lawyers would not stop Trump’s executive actions.

He said the plans are a response to a “Marxist takeover” of the country; likened the moment to 1776 and 1860, when the country was at war or on the brink of it; and said the timing of Trump’s candidacy was a “gift of God.”

Vought does not hide his agenda or shy away from using extreme rhetoric in public. But the apocalyptic tone and hard-line policy prescriptions in the two private speeches go further than his earlier pronouncements. As OMB director, Vought sought to use Trump’s 2020 “Schedule F” executive order to strip away job protections for nonpartisan government workers. But he has never spoken in such pointed terms about demoralizing federal workers to the point that they don’t want to do their jobs. He has spoken in broad terms about undercutting independent agencies but never spelled out sweeping plans to defund the EPA and other federal agencies.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhrhyBwgFFE
 
Red said:
[*]Military: In private speeches, he laid out plans to use armed forces to quell any domestic “riots.”
Click to expand...
The thing I find so funny about this narrative is that only four years ago detractors were screaming about Trump not making use of the National Guard to protect the capitol. Everybody knows the National Guard is military, right? Now he's saying that he will make use of the tools at hand to maintain the peace if a similar event happens in the future, and now the detractors are screaming about that. Methinks the detractors just like to detract,
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Al-O-Meter said:
The thing I find so funny about this narrative is that only four years ago detractors were screaming about Trump not making use of the National Guard to protect the capitol. Everybody knows the National Guard is military, right? Now he's saying that he will make use of the tools at hand to maintain the peace if a similar event happens in the future, and now the detractors are screaming about that. Methinks the detractors just like to detract,
Click to expand...
L-O-****ing-L that you think Trump is actually talking about January 6 rioters as the ones he wants to use the military on. Those 'day of love' people who were there on his behalf and that he has never denounced.

Clown ****, I know you don't actually believe what you type but that was bad even for you.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
L-O-****ing-L that you think Trump is actually talking about January 6 rioters as the ones he wants to use the military on.
Click to expand...
Trump's efforts to use the National Guard on January 6, against the rioters even though they were there to support him, is documented fact.

cha.house.gov

Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
cha.house.gov cha.house.gov

I'm not sure why people don't think I believe what I write. Not only do I believe it, but I nearly always have the evidence from reputable sources to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top