End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, December 13, 2025 18:43
VIEWED: 10323
PAGE 1 of 10
Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party? Quote:
DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.
The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.
As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."
This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.
It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.
Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.
This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:
"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and 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. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."
This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.
This isn't the only fun lawsuit going on right now against the DNC. Another, which might actually have some legs, has been brought by several campaign staff from the election that just ended. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC refuses the pay them overtime. That case is still quietly moving through the system, wit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw gee, that's a shame. Hey, it's time for something joyous and wonderful to soothe aching souls everywhere.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT
That was the same argument they made to the press when it came to giving Hillary all those superdelegates, and changing the rules in the middle of the Nevada primary.
I'm not at all surprised.
Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RL - I shoud move to Japan!
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A fact that gets lost due to ignorance, is that Bernie tried to hijack the Democratic party. He is not a "Democrat." He is a self described Socialist who is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. The Democratic Party did, and does, owe him nothing.
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party? Quote:
DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.
The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.
As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."
This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.
It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.
Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.
This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:
"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and 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. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."
This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G,
No, not a chance. They knew HRC was toxic. He approval rating hasn't gone about 36% since her first day as first lady. She was the agenda they wanted. Bernie was not. But that wasn't the point, that we should have Bernie. Okay, I voted for Bernie, but that's in part because Chafee was no longer on the ticket when it came to New York. I know and respect Bernie, but he's a little far left for me.
The poll data was absolutely one-sided on showing that Bernie had more of a chance of winning than Hillary. The fact that he wasn't a Democrat was more of an issue. Trump of course wasn't a republican. I think this says a lot about the rejection of the two party system.
The thing is, the fact that the democratic party used as a defense "we're not democratic" automatically means the end of the "democratic" party, and the continuance of a tammany hall party.
1kiki, i didn't know they'd used it before.
Anyway, this is my point of why we need a third party. The democrats will only accept a democratic loyalist and have just said that they reserve the right to rig the primary against any liberal who is not loyal to the party of the agenda. That means there is now no party for a liberal to run in. The greens have no chance, and refuse to oppose the democrats in battleground states, which means high EC point states, and therefore can never win. Also, the greens have no one in govt after how many years? no senators, no congressmen, that's pretty pathetic.
Someone can maybe reform an existing party, or make a new one. I given up hope the dems can change because when they see change they executive order it out of existence.
T, acknowledged, all of that. However, it wasn't the point: They had an open contest* and he won. Then after the dems had their open contest, they then cheated to make sure their chosen candidate won, then it was leaked to wikileaks, and proven, and their response is "oh, we can have an open primary but it doesn't matter, we'll still pick who we want" which is not democratic or American. I'm not whining anymore that we (bernie folk) lost the primary or the election, (we might'a won that election, given a chance. polls say) But my point is that if no heads roll and this is a valid defense, then it ceases to be the democratic party, or its name just becomes ironic.
* The GOP had an open contest and the non-republican card carry rpusa member won, and is now president because the GOP didn't get rid of him, but that's a side issue
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In his 2016 presidential bid, Sanders seems to oscillate between labeling himself as a Democrat and being an independent. But that’s neither inaccurate nor particularly unusual, experts said.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
A fact that gets lost due to ignorance, is that Bernie tried to hijack the Democratic party. He is not a "Democrat." He is a self described Socialist who is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. The Democratic Party did, and does, owe him nothing.
Unlike elsewhere in the world, joining the two major parties isn’t contingent upon membership fees or an application process. Party leaders also don’t have the power to say someone isn’t a Democrat or a Republican.
So political affiliation in the United States is a matter of self-identification, in both the governing system and the party organizations, experts said. That allows Sanders and other elected officials to be flexible.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-san
ders-democrat/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Both parties stand a more than good chance of contributing to their demise if they don't start actually serving the people of this country. I will go as far as saying that we may get a French-style revolt on our hands.
Les Miserables!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party?Quote:
DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.
The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.
As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."
This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.
It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.
Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.
This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:
"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and 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. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."
This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.
This isn't tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reasonable people everywhere can only hope that the Democrap Party comes to an end.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really!? Reasonable people...the latest on the American Health Bill, or Trumpcare (an oxymoron) is that it will only benefit those banking $200,000 or more a year.
No pre-existing conditions (despite what Drumpf says, quelle surprise!)
Definite cut, 25%, in Medicaid for the poor, disabled and elderly, so if you're poor, sick and/or elderly you're FUCKED.
As a result, hospitals in rural areas and cash-strapped hospitals in the metro areas
will become non-existent in the near future because their patients will no longer be able to afford health insurance. Which will put more doctors and nurses on the unemployment line, not to mention the supporting staff. Now, didn't Trump promise not to cut Medicaid? Hmmmmmm
Guess where those people are going to move to? Oh yeah! the metro areas. Guess who they will blame for their change of scenery? Starts with an R.
Gee, I hope you have $200,000 laying around somewhere, otherwise brace yourself for a rude awakening. NOT KIDDING!!!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reasonable people everywhere can only hope that the Democrap Party comes to an end.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME