DNC Fraud case is over. Judge agrees DNC cheated, dismisses anyways.

[Shadowferal]

From what I understand, what is obvious is that the DNC didn't do anything illegal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical.
Still doesn't make it right.
DNC has a lot of work to do....and they have yet to do much of anything to clean up their little act.
Worse, they aren't do anything today to rally voter enthusiasm against the GOP.

[Theodarzna]

Edit: Mistake on my part for part of it, the case assumes that the plaintiff is correct at this stage. Still Judge dismisses and the DNC's Lawyers whole argument was that the Party rules are not legally binding and that they have no actual rules.

Still wondering that if the judge has no standing to hear it and the case is about them manipulating it to prevent the voters from having a real say in the matter, then who is responsible for holding them accountable? Because the system doesn't really allow the people to just start up viable 3rd or 4th parties.

Correction where it is due. Here is my original post

Basically the voters are responsible by punishing the party and not giving them their votes. It is shady as fuck though that it has been ruled that political parties have zero obligation to act in accordance with their own stated charters and rules.

[Mormolyce]

That's not at all what the judge said.

"In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true"

They assume the allegations are true for the purpose of determining standing and harm caused. They didn't actually determine that anything was true. The finding was the even if it were true the plaintiffs have no ground to sue. That's it.

/thread.

Or, you know, it should've been.

[Theodarzna]

That's not at all what the judge said.

"In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true"

They assume the allegations are true for the purpose of determining standing and harm caused. They didn't actually determine that anything was true. The finding was the even if it were true the plaintiffs have no ground to sue. That's it.

The position of "Even if we did do what it looks like we did, it was technically legal so HA!" and even then that seems to be the standard Democrat loyalists response to it as well. "Of course the party has the right to put their thumb on the scale and waste peoples time and money!"

[Endus]

The position of "Even if we did do what it looks like we did, it was technically legal so HA!" and even then that seems to be the standard Democrat loyalists response to it as well. "Of course the party has the right to put their thumb on the scale and waste peoples time and money!"

More like "even if we take all the worst allegations as being valid, this still isn't an issue that would be of any interest to the courts in any way whatsoever because you should just handle it your own damn selves if you think it's a problem".

It's not "technically legal". It's "obviously legal and it's stupid that you even raised the possibility that it wasn't, why are you even here?" And that's IF the accusations had merit, which no one has ever demonstrated. At worst, it's shown that a few staffers preferred Clinton to get the nomination. That's it. THE HORROR. Look at those dark crevices where DNC staffers have a preference as to who leads the party.

No evidence they actually DID anything to bias the results.
No evidence of any tampering WITH the results.

Your entire complaint is that DNC staffers have opinions. That's seriously it.

[Theodarzna]

More like "even if we take all the worst allegations as being valid, this still isn't an issue that would be of any interest to the courts in any way whatsoever because you should just handle it your own damn selves if you think it's a problem".

Thanks for making a distinction without a difference.

Then again this sort of technicality is right up your ally.

[Felya]

Thanks for making a distinction without a difference.

Then again this sort of technicality is right up your ally.

This is not a technicality, it's you being sold a bill of lies and still buying into it. Neither party has any legal binding in their selection. Each state and party within it, have their own rules. It's why you can bitch about Hillary and I can point to Bernie winning WA a whole month before people voted and got a disproportionate number of delegates, to his actual percentage of the vote... to show you have been sold a lie...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open..._United_States

[Felya]

Hows your Nazi defending president working out?

No longer complaining that the primaries or general elections were rigged...

[Theodarzna]

This is not a technicality, it's you being sold a bill of lies and still buying into it. Neither party has any legal binding in their selection. Each state and party within it, have their own rules. It's why you can bitch about Hillary and I can point to Bernie winning WA a whole month before people voted and got a disproportionate number of delegates, to his actual percentage of the vote... to show you have been sold a lie...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open..._United_States

I know I know "Democrats did nothing wrong, Hillary is radiant light unto all nations!" ect.

Neither party does, yet only one parties supporters simply to suggest "You have no right to a fair hearing from us, BUT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR US AND PARTICIPATE ANYWAY!" and when its brought up that a reason for not partipating is the lack of assurances that it isn't being rigged the response is "How dare you expect us to be ethical or keep our WORD! FUCK YOU!"

- - - Updated - - -

Hows your Nazi defending president working out?

Considering how freaked out of their minds Democrats are, I kinda wish he and Richard Spencer would through up the okay sign in a photo op on the sincere hope that much of the CNN and MSNBC staff would rip their own skin off in shear frustration.

But hey, TPP/TTIP is dead and at least so far there isn't a full scale war with Russia, though sadly all the doves are gone like Bannon so it looks like Democrats will get a continuation of Bloodthirsty Barracks vicious military adventures anyway. Sad about that honestly.

But the TPP/TTIP is for now dead. So, on the hole, I'd say its great.

[Theodarzna]

At least you are honest and not trying to dodge what kind of person you are. So there is that I guess.

Dodge what? Trump is your president too. I am satisfied with the TPP/TTIP being dead and that rat Hillary not being president. The main thing to be sad about is the likely continuation of the blood soaked policies of Obama, Bush and Clinton and military adventurism being a thing. But hey, six months of relative peace and there was at least a chance for a peace centered presidency which Clinton would have never offered.

[Vyuvarax]

I know I know "Democrats did nothing wrong, Hillary is radiant light unto all nations!" ect.

Neither party does, yet only one parties supporters simply to suggest "You have no right to a fair hearing from us, BUT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR US AND PARTICIPATE ANYWAY!" and when its brought up that a reason for not partipating is the lack of assurances that it isn't being rigged the response is "How dare you expect us to be ethical or keep our WORD! FUCK YOU!"

- - - Updated - - -



Considering how freaked out of their minds Democrats are, I kinda wish he and Richard Spencer would through up the okay sign in a photo op on the sincere hope that much of the CNN and MSNBC staff would rip their own skin off in shear frustration.

But hey, TPP/TTIP is dead and at least so far there isn't a full scale war with Russia, though sadly all the doves are gone like Bannon so it looks like Democrats will get a continuation of Bloodthirsty Barracks vicious military adventures anyway. Sad about that honestly.

But the TPP/TTIP is for now dead. So, on the hole, I'd say its great.

I have no problem with the position that the DNC showed favoritism to Clinton; it was pretty evident during the primary and the court ruling corroborates that. But to say it was 'rigged' is beyond what this ruling suggests and indicates a lack of objectivity on your part in discussing these matters.

- - - Updated - - -

Dodge what? Trump is your president too. I am satisfied with the TPP/TTIP being dead and that rat Hillary not being president. The main thing to be sad about is the likely continuation of the blood soaked policies of Obama, Bush and Clinton and military adventurism being a thing. But hey, six months of relative peace and there was at least a chance for a peace centered presidency which Clinton would have never offered.

If we are in the middle of six months of relative peace with Trump, then we had 8 years of relative peace under Obama. Guess you'd have to agree he was the better president by your own narrow standard.

[Theodarzna]

I have no problem with the position that the DNC showed favoritism to Clinton; it was pretty evident during the primary and the court ruling corroborates that. But to say it was 'rigged' is beyond what this ruling suggests and indicates a lack of objectivity on your part in discussing these matters.

However you term it, its a strange position to both expect people to not care if shenanigans went on but still participate enthusiastically in a process that is clearly not a fair shake.

- - - Updated - - -

If we are in the middle of six months of relative peace with Trump, then we had 8 years of relative peace under Obama. Guess you'd have to agree he was the better president by your own narrow standard.

The legion of drone strikes and supports for regime change in Libya and elsewhere and the indiscriminate violence around the world by Obama says otherwise.

[Orange Joe]

Dodge what? Trump is your president too. I am satisfied with the TPP/TTIP being dead and that rat Hillary not being president. The main thing to be sad about is the likely continuation of the blood soaked policies of Obama, Bush and Clinton and military adventurism being a thing. But hey, six months of relative peace and there was at least a chance for a peace centered presidency which Clinton would have never offered.

The past 6 months have been a continuation of the last 8 years. So you are saying we had a peaceful 8 years under "bloody obama"?

[Vyuvarax]

However you term it, its a strange position to both expect people to not care if shenanigans went on but still participate enthusiastically in a process that is clearly not a fair shake.

Your term of 'rigged' is inaccurate and intentionally misleading. What you're claiming didn't happen, so its apparent the truth of the matter does not interest you, only what you can try to politicize to advantage your own political agenda in attacking democrats.

The legion of drone strikes and supports for regime change in Libya and elsewhere and the indiscriminate violence around the world by Obama says otherwise.

Trump already has multiple missile strikes including with a previously unused MOAB at a regime his administration would like to depose. I guess drones are the difference maker in your narrow, subjective world view? Oh but we're still using them. Damn, guess there is no difference.

[Fugus]

@Endus

Alright, you are saying the primaries were fair. The stuff with Debbie and Donna never happened, the whole voice vote thing with Debbie never happened, the debate and primary scheduling to favor a single candidate never happened, the DNC and the media working together never happened and the media blackout on a single candidate never happened nor did the Super Delegates almost entirely line up behind a single candidate before a single vote was cast so they could claim she had an overwhelming lead she didn't have to try and give her as much momentum as she could and kill any momentum Sanders had trying to get his members to stay home never happened, ...... That's not even getting into everything.....

And you are saying the rules are binding, they are just not externally enforceable and will not be internally enforceable because they are being done by the ones in charge. Therefore, they are not binding.

As for your last part about the plaintiffs having no grounds, I will have to reread it because I read it as they could not prove that the actions had directly defrauded them as donors.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically the voters are responsible by punishing the party and not giving them their votes. It is shady as fuck though that it has been ruled that political parties have zero obligation to act in accordance with their own stated charters and rules.

The problem with that is the US is setup so they voters can't punish the party that much. When it comes to elections, they have the Democrats and the Republicans, not much they can do as 3rd parties aren't viable and staying home accomplishes little. Once 3rd parties become viable, so does that option but when your votes are between Wingus and Dingus and no other option, not much the voters can do to punish them other than try and vote for people who align with them even less.

Political parties, by virtue of the power they hold and the benefits the US government gives to them, should be legally bound to uphold their rules they set forth. It is like most other monopoly/duopoly situations on critical situations, letting the consumers sort it out doesn't work as their is no free market in that situation. Same when it comes to voting in a 2 party system using the voters free market to punish the party just doesn't work.

[Theodarzna]

The problem with that is the US is setup so they voters can't punish the party that much. When it comes to elections, they have the Democrats and the Republicans, not much they can do as 3rd parties aren't viable and staying home accomplishes little. Once 3rd parties become viable, so does that option but when your votes are between Wingus and Dingus and no other option, not much the voters can do to punish them other than try and vote for people who align with them even less.

Political parties, by virtue of the power they hold and the benefits the US government gives to them, should be legally bound to uphold their rules they set forth. It is like most other monopoly/duopoly situations on critical situations, letting the consumers sort it out doesn't work as their is no free market in that situation. Same when it comes to voting in a 2 party system using the voters free market to punish the party just doesn't work.

True, considering the power they are granted and the duopoly they are allowed to hold by virtue of the law means that realistically nobody has much of an alternative save for not voting at all.

[Fugus]

True, considering the power they are granted and the duopoly they are allowed to hold by virtue of the law means that realistically nobody has much of an alternative save for not voting at all.

Exactly, so telling the voters to sort it out doesn't work when the system itself is setup to prevent them from doing so.

[Vyuvarax]

Exactly, so telling the voters to sort it out doesn't work when the system itself is setup to prevent them from doing so.

This past election is a good example of why the parties do not like giving voters complete control over who the nominee is. Republican leaders did not want Trump, and he is in fact horrible as can be.

[Fugus]

This past election is a good example of why the parties do not like giving voters complete control over who the nominee is. Republican leaders did not want Trump, and he is in fact horrible as can be.

You can also put part of them on Clinton as the leaks showed her working with the media to try and prop Trump up and take him more seriously. Otherwise he would have likely gotten the Sanders treatment on media where they were more interested in looking at empty podiums then him actually talking and treat him like the guy who was promising ponies if he won a few years ago.

And you also have to look at why they voted for him, he was at least paying lip service to problems the others ignored, he was bullshitting and speaking out his ass but he at least acknowledged them.

The last election was like voting whether you wanted to eat an entire live chicken whole or have it shoved up your ass. People don't exactly go for rational decisions when those are your only options.

[Theodarzna]

Exactly, so telling the voters to sort it out doesn't work when the system itself is setup to prevent them from doing so.

Well you can still disengage, or hound the party consistently. Obviously if you're going to vote for them no matter what then really whatever impropriety they do you cannot ever complain about it.