|
|
|
Trump Guilty
- Thread starter GreyGhost
- Start date
Kamala isn't promising to destroy American democracy.
DownUnder
Well-known member
How many state primaries did she win to be elected as the democratic candidate? How many votes did she get from the electorate?
She got exactly ZERO delegates last time she ran, called Joe a racist and then served as his vice president.
The only thing that counts is the votes from the population in Nov and last time I checked she got the democratic party nod rather quickly.
No one cares what came before in primaries...meaningless.
Seems Joe forgave her since he chose her as his VP AND endorsed her.
....not sure what point you are trying to make.
No one cares what came before in primaries...meaningless.
Seems Joe forgave her since he chose her as his VP AND endorsed her.
....not sure what point you are trying to make.
Last edited:
In 2016 Clinton won the Democratic Primary in Washington State but lost the Caucus to Sanders by almost 3-to-1. They used the results of the Primary instead, which isn't the normal process. Delegates aren't bound by the results of the Caucus. Hell, I'm not even sure they're bound by the results of either.
DownUnder
Well-known member
Exactly... the people voted but the party said f that were doing this instead.
Kamala wasn't voted on, she was placed there with no input from the electorate.
And yet Trump and the Republicans are the ones that are a threat to Democracy?
TK4
Well-known member
Yes.
If that was accurate both REP and DEM platforms would be the same, except one would be in Courier New and the other in Times New Roman.
Last edited:
It's actually the other way around. The electorate voted for Clinton. The Caucus voted for Sanders. Instead of following the vote by the Caucus they selected the candidate that was voted for by the electorate, citing that the Caucus results were unrepresentative of what the voters wanted.
There is no choice, at this point but to take the results of who the delegates, appointed by their regions, select at the Democratic Convention. The convention is when the nomination actually takes place and Biden was only the PRESUMPTIVE candidate, until the convention.
Last edited:
To be fair they would have actually passed their classes, but failed The Bar. The Bar Exam would be separate from their scholastic requirements.
Edit - It seems that a "legal education" is required but a law school diploma is only one way to qualify for that requirement.
The State Bar of California
Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.www.calbar.ca.gov
Similarly to my doctor, I like my lawyer to have a piece of paper from his peers to say he's reasonably qualified to advise me, not some paralegal diploma from Algoma University.
Point probably is, leopard can't change its spots.
DownUnder
Well-known member
History doesnt agree with you. The man was president already and he didnt destroy US democracy.
Just like the first time around when the left was hysterical, fearmongering the nuclear codes and telling everyone he will blow the world up... meanwhile what ensued was the most peace and prosperity in decades.
January 6th would disagree with you. Not accepting the results of the election would disagree with you.
He helped engineer the situation in which Roe v. Wade was overturned, when it was considered settled law. He has made statements that, when taken in context, imply a desire to eliminate democratic protections. He invoked his followers to attack the Capitol, during the ratification of his opponents election to the Presidency.
Gold, Jerry. Gold.
It certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Democratic
DownUnder
Well-known member
Clinton, Pelosi etc etc etc didnt accept the results in 2016...
A president nominating SCOTUS members... the humanity. There is dozens of democrat party members on record encouraging the 3 years of BLM riots and looting after trumps election win... Including Harris.
The demotracts have tried every underhanded tactic they could think of to remove a democratically elected nominee from the race upto and including assassination...
That would be a President nominating SCOTUS members who were supposed to be nominated by the previous President, who was blocked from doing so.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
It has never been considered settled. The US constitution framers could not see the future, so many things are not considered.
The bulletproof way to amend the US constitution is through Purpose, a procedure that requires 75% of the states to agree.
The Feds can also pass Federal protection laws, there’s bill on the table now. Less enduring as there would be countless contests and future legislators can easily strike or change laws.
The scholarly argument for RvW is the constitution can be stretched, and SCOTUS of the day connected right to privacy to right to abortion
The arguments against are 1) the interpretation overstepped state constitutions, 2) the convoluted link to the 14th amendment right to privacy was an act of judicial activism (justices making legislator policy), something SCOTUS is not supposed to do.
Striking down RvW gave the law making back to each state, and as one would imagine states differ based on the ideology of their voters and state government.
My guess is Harris will campaign on this, but not as a make or break issue. If she wins, she’ll pass protection law.
.
|
|
|
|
|