Do the Democratic Party believe it is more important to pick a woman of color than it is to win the election?

[msc545]

[Anonymous]

Sadly yes. In 2020 Harris was rejected by voters for being a terrible candidate and campaigner, and will be rejected again. Harris supporters think she's a strong candidate who will mop the floor with Trump in a debate, I just don't see that happening, she's not very good at public speaking, and will look weak in debates no matter how many lies Trump spews. In 2020, she was a rising candidate and a favorite of the establishment, 3 minutes with Tulsi, her campaign tanked and eventually dropped out before voting started. Wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't the plan all along, make Harris VP, then have Biden run in a fixed primary, then drop out last minute with Harris the only possible choice for the nomination. This is the last straw, I'm done with the DNC, will be re-registering as a independent, they screwed over voters in 2016 when they fixed the primary for Hillary resulting in a Trump, and now they screwed over voters again to hand Harris the nomination which will result in a Trump win. I have no problems with voting for a woman of color, heck I supported Tulsi in 2020, but when that person of color is being selected based color and not qualifications, I do have a problem as it ensures a Trump win. I wonder how many primary voters would have voted for Biden had they known he'd drop close to election time.

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks for Superb Opinion.

[Dargil]

What other (winning) alternatives do they have? There are good, moderate Democrats out there but they have been infected with Leftism. When they lose either by election or Civil War, they will change. Not until then.

[dustybiker2]

She isn't who I want but at least she has experience.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Win the election, color of their skin doesn't matter to me.

[goaded]

No. If they ignored the person who's been next in line for the presidency for the last nearly four years, just because she was black or a woman, they'd deserve to lose. Most sexists and racists were always going to vote Trump anyway. Now you've got a prosecutor running against a convict.

[ProbablyClueless]

It's... tough to imagine that they see things any differently. I don't know how else to explain this.

She sure as hell isn't being picked for her competence. And the fact Obama is endorsing her is just further proof that they're hoping the voter base has a short memory.

[goaded]

And the Republican party isn't? "Were you better off four years ago?" when over a thousand Americans were dying a day of covid?

Don't worry about the 34 felony convictions, or that the SCOTUS had to fly in the face of nearly 250 years of precedent to protect Trump, or that Trump hired the judge who just let him off an open-and-shut case, or that Trump owes over $80 million to a woman he raped for defamation and nearly $500 million to the state of New York for fraud.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded This question was asking specifically about Democrats. And anyway, SCOTUS didn't fly in the face of any precedent protecting Trump; the fact those cases were being tried at all was patently offensive. They warded off a bunch of bullies.

As for the those 34 counts and the "rape" case; I'd be surprised if they don't get thrown out as violations of due process.

[goaded]

Of course they were. Nobody ever claimed that the president could commit crimes without consequences, except Nixon, who was laughed out of office.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Nobody is claiming that now either. All anyone has said is that we can't prosecute the President for the job we are paying him to do. The specific statement of law is "presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts which fall within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority".

[goaded]

Plus little details that mean that the president can claim almost anything is "within their exclusive sphere of constitutional authority", and that nobody can dispute it. Ordering the military to kill a political rival is explicitly "within their exclusive sphere of constitutional authority", so is selling pardons.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Actually, anyone with any knowledge about the constitution can dispute that. The president's constitutional authority is limited to carrying out the laws given to him by Congress. Ordering the military to kill a political rival is absolutely not within that scope. Even if for no other reason than that the military charters define what viable enemy targets are.

The President will never be able to just willy nilly kill American citizens because he feels like it.

[goaded]

Ordering the military to remove a clear and present danger to the country is at least arguably within the "president's constitutional authority". And arguably is all that's needed. The president can also pardon anyone who breaks the law on their behalf.

Who decides what the "president's constitutional authority" is? SCOTUS. The one that just decided that presidents have had this power all along, and nobody realised it.

I take it you're fine with the idea of a president selling pardons?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded In order for the President to order a hit on a political opponent and have it be within his duties as president, he would have to be able to articulate that and why the opponent was actually a clear and present danger. That's simply not going to happen.

I wouldn't say I'm "fine" with selling pardons, but I know presidents have done it in other ways

[goaded]

Have you heard Republican rhetoric about Democrats recently? And, like I said, he only has to pretend to convince SCOTUS. (Have you noticed that nobody expects a Democratic president to need this immunity?)

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded I have heard the rhetoric recently. And frankly, even though it breaks my heart to hear, I think it's about time you people have started to get called out. The only reason no one is talking about a Democrat needing this immunity is because a Democrat (or even an establishment republican) wouldn't be prosecuted.

[goaded]

Oh, bullshit. What Republican rhetoric about Democrats is true? Are they communists? Is the border wide open? Do they want illegal aliens to vote? No, to all three (and Republicans ensured the border was left as it was when they had a chance to add border security and speed the ejection of failed asylum seekers).

No Democratic president would break the law except in the interests of the country's security. SCOTUS just decided that courts can't even take into account the intent of any lawbreaking (to shield Trump in his Jan 6 trial).

Navarro addressed the RNC on his way home from prison. Trump's a felon, 34 times over. Bannon's in prison, so is Trump's CFO. It's a gang of criminals.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded the border stuff is incredibly true, along with the human trafficking stuff, the transgender stuff has been true, the Democrat calls for violence have been incredibly true, the subversion of democracy has been true in both Sanders' case and now Kamala's. The claim about the Democrats' baseless and hypocritical weaponization of the legal system is patently true.

The Democrat representation have proven to be a truly awful group of people. They're every bit the criminals they claim the Trump camp to be, the only difference being that no one would have to interpret the law in bad faith to convict them.

[goaded]

It's really not, those are all lies, but if they were true, do you think they would justify extra-judicial action by a president Trump? "To save the country"?

The law is incredibly clear on the documents case, for example. Trump needed his own appointees (plus Thomas and Alito) to run interference for him on SCOTUS and Cannon to drag out the trial until after the election (her dismissal of the case is going to be appealed). Those are the only people interpreting the law in bad faith.

No Trump appointee should have had anything to do with sitting in judgement on him. Federal judges are supposed to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's the law. www.uscourts.gov/.../code-conduct-united-states-judges

I would expect Biden appointees to disqualify themselves from any cases involving Biden. That is, if anyone actually came up with an iota of evidence of wrong-doing. The House committee has essentially exonerated Biden from all their bogus allegations over the last couple of years.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Well... you're certainly consistent in your delusion. I'll give you that.

[goaded]

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded And because of the way federal judge appointment works, no one in their right mind would say that was a reasonable basis to question their impartiality.

[goaded]

Why? There are always alternative judges and justices that weren't nominated by a particular president, and the bar is "impartiality might reasonably be questioned", not even that it is questioned. That's why Cannon is especially egregious, having already exceeding her authority to interfere in the lead up to the same documents case and been reprimanded by the appeals court.

The only president that's ever hit this problem is Trump; only Nixon (Watergate cover-up), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Bush (CIA torture), and maybe Obama, for targeting key al-Qaeda organizer Anwar al-Awlaki and (separately, and supposedly accidentally) his son.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Because Article 3 judges have job security. They are insulated from the constant power shifting in the other branches. The appointment itself isn't an arbitrary decision made by solely the president; it has to be approved by the Senate, which would uncover any biases and personal interests. Then, in order to fire the Article 3 judge, they have to be impeached by the house and Senate.

The idea that these judges would have some undying loyalty to Trump is absurd. They simply wouldn't have survived the appointment process if they did.

[goaded]

So? You're saying they didn't just get a job from the defendant, they got a really, really, good job for life!

Four of the majority were confirmed by a bare majority in the Senate, three after McConnell changed the rules to stop the minority party from blocking any of Trump's three nominees.

Once more: the bar is "impartiality might reasonably be questioned", not that it is questioned. Surely sitting in judgement on your benefactor clears that bar by a long way.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded The fact you don't like something doesn't make it illegal, immoral, or a problem.

You've been using the system to be a bully. The fact the system didn't allow you to do that is a reflection of your character; not the system.

[goaded]

I showed you the law, I showed that the only person in American history to run up against this problem is Trump, and you think sitting in judgement over the person who gave you your lifetime appointment could never reasonably be questioned.

It's 100% a problem, it's certainly immoral, especially now we know how far they're willing to go to protect Trump, and it should be illegal, but the legality will be decided by the same corrupt SCOTUS that decided that presidents are essentially above the law (like Putin is in Russia).

None of these developments are positive for the country.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded No, you showed me your misinterpretation of the law.

[goaded]

"28 U. S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

You think it's completely, 100%, unreasonable to question a judge's impartiality when the defendant is the person who gave them their position for life?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded In the context of the only concern being a regular article 3 appointment? Yeah, I would say that's unreasonable. These people don't have a close personal relationship with the person who appointed them and the Senate gets involved in the appointment. Even Trump was their golden boy, the judge would owe their appointment to a hell of a lot more people than just Trump.

Everybody is going to have their own opinions about any politician. That Judge isn't going to be any more biased that anyone else.

[goaded]

Oh, come on. The Federalist Society chose them and McConnell made sure they were confirmed despite their lies about respecting precedent. Why wouldn't they protect Trump? Judges have been nominated by Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, HW Bush, how would it be a problem to exclude the ones nominated by Trump?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded No, the Senate chose them; that's how the appointment system works. This is the legal process, my friend. I'm sure that a judge who you feel more comfortable with will hear any appeals made on this matter.

[goaded]

OMG, that's not how it works at all, the Senate confirms the president's nominees. The president chooses them. In the cases of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett the Senate confirmed them without even having to overcome the objections of the opposition, thanks to McConnell.

Judges shouldn't sit in judgement over the person who gave them their lifetime appointment to a really great job. It's obvious.

What's also obvious is that nobody thinks Trump would be acquitted for his crimes if the judges were actually impartial.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded you know what I meant.

In any case, I don't think that's obvious consensus at all. Actually, it seems like more people lean in the direction of acquittal because that's how the law lines up up with the facts of the situation. You have to make more of stretch to convict Trump on anything. What happened in NY is a prime example of that.

Every legal analyst in the world, even the liberal ones were stunned that the judge interpreted the law the way he did

[goaded]

What you said was simply wrong.

Same as you're probably wrong about the NY case. To be sure, you'll have to be more specific - criminal or civil case? If the latter, which one? The $85 million fine defamation case he lost or the $355 million fraud one? Or the Trump University case? Or the Trump Corporation fraud case?

That reminds me, is his CFO out of Riker's for his perjury on Trump's behalf yet?

[normalice]

They believe there isn't time to have a whole new primary. And they are right.

[ManInChains]

Yes, they care more about feminism and DEI than the country itself

[Anonymous]

if you don't vote for Kamala, you're a racist and a misogynist but you can't say you're voting for because she's a woman of color because that's also racist and misogynist

[msc545]

This is the sort of ridiculous response that makes me sorry. I allowed anonymous responses on this question. I won't make that mistake again.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Of course they do. Doesn't matter what your platform is, doesn't matter what your message is. Identity politics is all that matters.

[Sevenpointfive]

it hadn't really occured to me until you said it. i guess it will be the blacks vs. the whites

[exitseven]

no, when Kamala craters in the polls in the weeks before the convention we may see an open convention of sorts and somebody more moderate gets plugged in.

[DJB72]

It looks that way, otherwise RFK Jr wouldn't be an independent...

[_piotr]

Yes. They hate men and treat LGBT and POC like gods.

[Anonymous]

I think they think this is their best bet to win the election. I'm not quite sure why though. It's really weird.

[OddBeMe]

Maybe when Biden chose his VP…but now it’s just 25th amendment…

[Anonymous]

A so-called
"woman of color" is going to most likely be on-board with the entirety of the wicked and immoral Democratic Party platform. And those people voting Democrat are going to know this.

[Anonymous]

It would seem so