My bad, I typed up a whole response to you but apparently never sent it and now it’s gone. Here’s a brief reply
My criticism was about the claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It’s ridiculous to think they wouldn’t support the DNC’s candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they’ve received from donors for basically whatever they want.
From what I just read yesterday, the majority of money was donated to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the DNC. Harris has to be on the ticket for all of that money to follow through, otherwise you are looking at a very small percentage of money transferring.
For instance, when Sanders dropped out, none of the money he raised automatically went to Clinton or Biden. Campaigns still have to follow campaign contribution laws when they donate to others.
If Biden drops out (I am leading toward he shouldn’t but fully side with the argument that he should if we lived in a perfect world), Harris has to be on the ticket or Trump is almost certainly the victor based off history alone.
Fair enough. I agree that that if it’s in her/biden’s name maybe normal campaign financing laws apply. That wasn’t what I was hearing, but I won’t pretend I looked into it in more detail.
That said, there are tons of ways to donate money from one party to another without breaking any laws - that’s kind of the whole problem we have. There’s no reason to think Harris keeps that money for her own campaign if we were in the scenario where we’re running a third person that isn’t either of them. It certainly isn’t a reason to end the discussion for getting us at least a fighting chance.
I understand how scary this is and how foreign the situation we’re in feels, but I don’t think the answer is necessarily to look for the safest option (especially if that means an old man with blatant dementia).
In a perfect world, we’d fill the streets and force them to put that money in a transparent account and use it to fund a candidate people actually support (one that support public financing of campaigns and all the end unnecessary spending and legalized bribery)
The way I look at it is, if Biden is as bad as we think he is, Kamala has already been acting as president. If we vote for him and he can’t finish his term, than nothing of note would actually be changed.
The question is, does she need him on the ticket to beat Trump?
Ouch. I typed up a whole reply to them but apparently never sent it and now it’s gone. Sigh. Oh well. I’ll reply to them next
My criticism was about their claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It’s ridiculous to think that they wouldn’t support the DNC’s candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they’ve received from donors for basically whatever they want.
The reply was maybe a bit harsh, in hindsight, but I keep seeing that parroted around like it’s undoubtedly true. It’s clearly just being repeated and not said with any significant critical thought. I mean, if we had a brokered convention it would be all hands on deck at the DNC.
Any candidate but Harris would not have access to the money already raised.
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money wins (ignoring 2016).
Meaning the only option the democrats have is to put Harris at the top of the ticket.
What the fuck are you talking about? You just decided to lie like that? That’s wild
? What is this in reference to?
My bad, I typed up a whole response to you but apparently never sent it and now it’s gone. Here’s a brief reply
My criticism was about the claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It’s ridiculous to think they wouldn’t support the DNC’s candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they’ve received from donors for basically whatever they want.
From what I just read yesterday, the majority of money was donated to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the DNC. Harris has to be on the ticket for all of that money to follow through, otherwise you are looking at a very small percentage of money transferring.
For instance, when Sanders dropped out, none of the money he raised automatically went to Clinton or Biden. Campaigns still have to follow campaign contribution laws when they donate to others.
If Biden drops out (I am leading toward he shouldn’t but fully side with the argument that he should if we lived in a perfect world), Harris has to be on the ticket or Trump is almost certainly the victor based off history alone.
Fair enough. I agree that that if it’s in her/biden’s name maybe normal campaign financing laws apply. That wasn’t what I was hearing, but I won’t pretend I looked into it in more detail.
That said, there are tons of ways to donate money from one party to another without breaking any laws - that’s kind of the whole problem we have. There’s no reason to think Harris keeps that money for her own campaign if we were in the scenario where we’re running a third person that isn’t either of them. It certainly isn’t a reason to end the discussion for getting us at least a fighting chance.
I understand how scary this is and how foreign the situation we’re in feels, but I don’t think the answer is necessarily to look for the safest option (especially if that means an old man with blatant dementia).
In a perfect world, we’d fill the streets and force them to put that money in a transparent account and use it to fund a candidate people actually support (one that support public financing of campaigns and all the end unnecessary spending and legalized bribery)
The way I look at it is, if Biden is as bad as we think he is, Kamala has already been acting as president. If we vote for him and he can’t finish his term, than nothing of note would actually be changed.
The question is, does she need him on the ticket to beat Trump?
What did they lie about?
Ouch. I typed up a whole reply to them but apparently never sent it and now it’s gone. Sigh. Oh well. I’ll reply to them next
My criticism was about their claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It’s ridiculous to think that they wouldn’t support the DNC’s candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they’ve received from donors for basically whatever they want.
The reply was maybe a bit harsh, in hindsight, but I keep seeing that parroted around like it’s undoubtedly true. It’s clearly just being repeated and not said with any significant critical thought. I mean, if we had a brokered convention it would be all hands on deck at the DNC.