- cross-posted to:
- michigan
- cross-posted to:
- michigan
Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote āuncommittedā in Michiganās primary on Tuesday
Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, pushed back on calls to not vote for Joe Biden over his handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, saying on Sunday that could help Trump get re-elected.
āItās important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote thatās not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,ā she said on Sunday during an interview on CNNās State of the Union. āA second Trump term would be devastating. Not just on fundamental rights, not just on our democracy here at home, but also when it comes to foreign policy. This was a man who promoted a Muslim ban.ā
Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Bidenās 2024 campaign, also said she wasnāt sure what to expect when it came to the protest vote.
Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat who is the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress, urged Democrats last week to vote āuncommittedā in Michiganās 27 February primary.
Every time people are saying they will vote third party in the general, I argue that itās important to vote for the best viable candidate, and the time to vote against a Democrat they donāt like is in the primaries. When people start saying no, you canāt even vote against the party leadershipās chosen candidate in a primary, what do you think theyāre going to do? BS antidemocratic rhetoric like that is exactly what is most likely to get us another Trump presidency. We start down that road and we can kiss democracy goodbye for good.
Anyone still spouting āthe DNC picked Hillary/Bidenā removes the agency of millions of voters who voted for Hillary/Biden in favor of their own preferences and perceived enlightenment. Honestly at this point itās legitimately just right wing trolls who are still harping on this as far as I can tell.
The DNC admitted on record in court that they cheated and that it was their right to cheat to get their own choices elected. Your endless boot sucking wonāt change the fact that we donāt get to choose our leaders in the primary. No, there isnāt a better option, but we donāt have to pretend itās a decent org.
Man, if the DNC can just brainwash voters youād think theyād win more reliably.
Pretending that thereās no way for the Democratic leadership to put their thumb on the scale, other than ābrainwashingā, when itās been proven that they did just that, is disingenuous at best. Doing so in defense of the fundamentally antidemocratic proposition that people shouldnāt be able to vote their conscience in the primary is shady as anything. You basically accused me of being a āright wing trollā in a previous comment. Protest too much?
So they took Bernie off the ballot then?
You arenāt even trying to argue in good faith. Not even close.
How do you figure? I was there and remember the primary very well. Bernie was in no way excluded from participating. How is that statement not in good faith? Because I merely disagree with your conspiracy laden conclusions about the role and behavior of a particular political party?
Like it or not, political parties are associations of private individuals. Bernie didnāt have to seek their nomination but he did. The DNC definitely had a preference, but in terms of historical black-dog primary candidates, 2016 was hardly unfair. Bernie knew that he had to beat an imposing superdelegate disadvantage. This was not hidden from him. And even then it didnāt matter because he lost by 8 million votes. Call me old fashioned, but removing the agency of 8M people because you donāt like the way they voted doesnāt strike me as āgood faith.ā
But the thing which really gets me is that after 2016, the DNC took the feedback to heart and made a bunch of sweeping changes to the nominating process intended to boost transparency, reduce the possibility of corruption by individuals (eg, DWS), and double the delegate allocation for voters. They did all the stuff āgood faithā votergroups wanted, yet somehow, none of the āgood faithā conversations about the DNC want to talk about that.
To this statement,
You replied withā¦
Your response was clearly a straw man. But maybe you just misunderstood and you were restating what you understood to be their point. But thenā¦
got the responseā¦
Now we have a pattern. Low effort straw man arguments are done in bad faith, unless you want to plead to just being an imbecile.
BTW: They werenāt my āconspiracy laden conclusionsā. That is (I assume) a mistaken attribution, and it is also a mischaracterization of what was said. I just came into the conversation to call you out for your bad faith arguments.