3 ms·
Likely because it enraged some Democrats with the reference to Kamala being unelected. It's back above 0 for me now, so it looks like the broader consensus is t
by aftbit 2y ago
Likely because it enraged some Democrats with the reference to Kamala being unelected. It's back above 0 for me now, so it looks like the broader consensus is that this is in fact a good comment.
- const_cast 2y agoIt doesn't anger anyone, it's just dishonest. The circumstances of her being the democratic candidate are well-document, you can't just say things that aren't true. Biden won the primary, then he stepped down. That's the actual story, and if you don't include the teensy little detail you're being dishonest. As a reminder to everyone, choosing not to tell the whole truth is dishonesty.
- an0malous 2y ago> 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 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-to-replace-biden-on-the-democratic-ticket-election-law-experts-say-no https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-... You’re the one being dishonest. The democratic nomination wasn’t official until August, and to suggest the Democratic Party had no other option is factually incorrect and a revision of history that ignores the months the party and pundits spent discussing other options, as well as the legal argument the party itself made to justify choosing Harris.