Black Lives Matter Statement on Kamala Harris Securing Enough Delegates to Become Democratic Nominee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 23, 2024 (~20 days ago)
This is almost three weeks old (FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 23, 2024) and it is demanding a virtual primary vote, something that has already happened over a week ago on August 2nd.
The Biden/Harris ticket had enough votes to win the democratic primary. Did anyone not think that voting for that ticket was also a vote for Harris in the case that the 81 year old candidate had to step down? That was indeed the case and here we are. What is the hangup?
"This blatant disregard for democratic principles is unacceptable. the way it was done prior to 1972."
I get that for people who aren't old enough to remember a time before primaries this may come as a shock, but it's not unheard of.
Parties are allowed to function how they want.
What they're proposing would be really messy, and wouldn't have had a similar outcome of quick unity and support that we've seen materialize.
I get the desire to have done a primary, but this situation was unprecedented and nearly every single potential challenger pledged their support for Kamala within the first 48 hours.
While no one can predict the unknown, at least to me I don't think it could have been handled much better than it was, other than going back in time and altering the original approach. That, of course, isn't possible since we don't have a delorean with a functioning flux capacitor.
Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.
How absurd is it that a Reuters report on the Black Lives Matter statement would get reported as "Least Biased" but the source of the article, the actual statement by BLM unfiltered by corporate media bias, is marked as medium credible and mixed factually? This bot is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking Dave Van Zandt seriously.
