DNC Email Leak

[ttystikk]

It seems, from an outside perspective, the right band together and rally behind their representative. Blindly and stupidly (I might add), but together nonetheless.

The left don't as much. Some are democrats, some independents, green, some think so and so isn't liberal enough, or too liberal, or "socialist".

Hopefully the left find a candidate they can all get behind by the next election. And if that candidate doesn't exactly hold all of their views, I'd hope they vote for them anyway knowing how shit the alternative (trump) is.

I voted for Bernie in the primary and Clinton in the general.

There are lots of us who held our noses and voted for the nominee.

The perception of impropriety was damning, nonetheless. All the protestations of 'that's just politics' obviously made a difference.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who would represent your interest better.

A. an establishment Democrat

B. any republican

Neither would represent my economic interests

for what?

For upholding their own bylaws. Article 5, Section 4 states;

"The Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

The only reason I can identify why someone would not support the DNC bylaws being legally binding is so the DNC doesn't have to be held accountable when they inevitably break them again during the next primary cycle. That excuse was used by you during this last primary, and now the DNCs lawyer is arguing the same exact thing in court; that they can pick whoever they want to run, democracy and the Democratic voters be damned

So if there's some other reason why you wouldn't support the DNCs own bylaws being legally binding, I would love to hear it

 

[UncleBuck]

Neither would represent my economic interests

For upholding their own bylaws. Article 5, Section 4 states;

"The Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

The only reason I can identify why someone would not support the DNC bylaws being legally binding is so the DNC doesn't have to be held accountable when they inevitably break them again during the next primary cycle. That excuse was used by you during this last primary, and now the DNCs lawyer is arguing the same exact thing in court; that they can pick whoever they want to run, democracy and the Democratic voters be damned

So if there's some other reason why you wouldn't support the DNCs own bylaws being legally binding, I would love to hear it

those aren't actual laws though and the people did speak. chose hillary by 4 million. a whole 12%.

cry.

 

[Padawanbater2]

those aren't actual laws though

That's the point. The DNC bylaws should be legally binding laws, so that if they're broken, people will be held legally accountable

 

[UncleBuck]

That's the point. The DNC bylaws should be legally binding laws, so that if they're broken, people will be held legally accountable

you really need to get over this bernie loss. there are plenty of people out there sticking up exclusively for angry white males. they're called republicans. go vote for them.

 

[Padawanbater2]

you really need to get over this bernie loss.

Who said anything about Bernie Sanders?

This is about ensuring and protecting the integrity of the 2020 election

 

[UncleBuck]

Who said anything about Bernie Sanders?

you, constantly saying he only lost (by 4 million votes and 12% no less) because RIGGED

 

[Padawanbater2]

you

Why don't you support making Article 5 legally binding?

Do you think there's something wrong with legally requiring the DNC to remain neutral when it comes to political campaigns or candidates? Why would you support subverting democracy and letting the DNC choose the Democratic candidate instead of the voters?

 

[UncleBuck]

Why don't you support making Article 5 legally binding?

Do you think there's something wrong with legally requiring the DNC to remain neutral when it comes to political campaigns or candidates? Why would you support subverting democracy and letting the DNC choose the Democratic candidate instead of the voters?

stop crying. the voters already choose the candidate. maybe consider finding a cult leader next time who doesn't write off black people and women who make up the backbone of the democratic party.

 

[Padawanbater2]

the voters already choose the candidate.

Not according to the lawyer representing the DNC, "We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,". Spiva is arguing the DNC has the right to choose the candidate, not the voters, in court, to a judge, on public record

 

[UncleBuck]

Not according to the lawyer representing the DNC, "We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,". Spiva is arguing the DNC has the right to choose the candidate, not the voters, in court, to a judge, on public record

the voters chose, crybaby.

especially in primaries, clinton cleaned up. the only place where bernouts did much winning were in chaotic caucuses where it was a much tougher process to vote.

bernouts were dedicated, but clinton had depth.

cry some more ya little bitch.

 

[666888]

Are you people still crying about the election
Hahaha
Get a life ffs

 

[Padawanbater2]

the voters chose

Why did Spiva make that argument in court? Keep in mind, it's a suit arguing on behalf of voters who donated money to the DNC and candidates other than Clinton who believe they were defrauded based on evidence released in the email leak. Spiva's arguing that there's no legally binding agreement between the DNC and Democratic voters that says the DNC has to remain neutral.

I'm simply saying that there should be a legally binding agreement between the DNC and the voters, and it's pretty simple, all they have to do is follow their own bylaws. Why would anyone disagree with that idea?

 

[schuylaar]

 

[schuylaar]

Why did Spiva make that argument in court? Keep in mind, it's a suit arguing on behalf of voters who donated money to the DNC and candidates other than Clinton who believe they were defrauded based on evidence released in the email leak. Spiva's arguing that there's no legally binding agreement between the DNC and Democratic voters that says the DNC has to remain neutral.

I'm simply saying that there should be a legally binding agreement between the DNC and the voters, and it's pretty simple, all they have to do is follow their own bylaws. Why would anyone disagree with that idea?

The DNC is a non-profit and they can lose their tax-free status for what they did among other things.

 

[ttystikk]

you, constantly saying he only lost (by 4 million votes and 12% no less) because RIGGED

So it's okay by you if the party has no integrity or responsibility to be even-handed and impartial?

And then you want people to vote for it?

How retarded is that?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

So it's okay by you if the party has no integrity or responsibility to be even-handed and impartial?

You guys are pretty harsh much of the time.


What about the other party? You know, the one that denies truth, science and has been the advocates of the wealthy since Herbert Hoover?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You guys are pretty harsh much of the time.


What about the other party? You know, the one that denies truth, science and has been the advocates of the wealthy since Herbert Hoover?

Also terrible. In many ways, more terrible. Great, we have two terrible political parties that represent special interests. Are you suggesting I should be happy that at least one of them is OK, sometimes, on some social issues?

 

[UncleBuck]

Also terrible. In many ways, more terrible. Great, we have two terrible political parties that represent special interests. Are you suggesting I should be happy that at least one of them is OK, sometimes, on some social issues?

keep on calling racial equality and abortion social issues and then wonder why you can't win a democratic primary then shout rigged like an adolescent twat.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Establishment Democrats strategy lost more than 1,000 seats across the country, and all three branches of government, against the most disliked candidate in more than half a century