I don’t think the word “rigging” tells an accurate story. I do think they pulled strings to get all the establishment candidates to Voltron into Biden for super Tuesday. I do think they influenced their cohorts in the media to make Bernie look like he couldn’t win the general. I don’t believe they messed with the voting process itself, which is what “rigging” tends to invoke.
Rather than try to deny it, they went with the tactic of saying
Again, context matters. In a legal process there are different times to make different arguments, and a good lawyer makes use every argument available. This particular argument dealt with whether or not the court had jurisdiction in the matter, so it came early in the process.
This in spite of their own charter mandating that they stay neutral
What exactly does that mean? Is every member required to be personally neutral in even their personal relationships outside the DNC? Does that extend to Obama who is neither a board member or on staff at the DNC? Being neutral is a good idea, but that rule is pretty meaningless.
To be clear, I am no apologist for the Democratic establishment. I blame them more for Trump than the Republicans. That’s why I want progressives to show up and vote them out in primaries. Giving the false impression that their vote won’t count is counterproductive.
they pulled strings to get all the establishment candidates to Voltron into Biden for super Tuesday. I do think they influenced their cohorts in the media to make Bernie look like he couldn’t win the general
That very much qualifies as rigging.
I don’t believe they messed with the voting process itself
How do you know? They control every part of it and have shown that they’re not above board in general 🤷
a good lawyer makes use every argument available.
That’s not how it works, no. A good lawyer chooses a coherent strategy that’s both likely to be successful and in accordance with the wishes of the client.
The DNC itself has a lot of skilled lawyers and would have agreed on a strategy long before a word was said in court. This was their choice, not that of a neutral lawyer just doing his darndest.
Being neutral is a good idea,
Agreed
but that rule is pretty meaningless
Only when it comes to unprincipled hypocrites who don’t care about the spirit of the rules but only how they can bend and break them to further their own agenda.
Is every member required to be personally neutral in even their personal relationships
Only to the extent that those relationships affect the primaries. Which they very much do when you’re doing everything you can to favor a specific candidate.
Does that extend to Obama who is neither a board member or on staff at the DNC?
He’s still a member of the party, one of if not THE most influential and thus powerful one at that, with more weight behind his words than most. That great power comes with great responsibility
To be clear, I am no apologist for the Democratic establishment
Could have fooled me, what with all that apologia 🙄
I blame them more for Trump than the Republicans
On that we agree, at least.
That’s why I want progressives to show up and vote them out in primaries
That would be great, if the DNC would ever allow it.
Giving the false accurate impression that their vote won’t count they will be manipulated and cheated is counterproductive the first step in the process of making sure that it will.
To be clear, that’s the only thing you have ever been or ever will be.
Oh, fuck off. I’ve been brutal towards the establishment. I just want them beaten, and pretending elections are rigged is counterproductive to that end. You’re nothing but a right wing agitator.
they might respond to pressure to stop
Why would they? It’s apparently working. Now who is suddenly feeling charitable towards the establishment? You think they can be shamed into playing nice? You are so full of shit.
That’s an overly charitable interpretation.
What actually happened was that progressives sued the DNC for unfairly rigging the primaries, which they did.
Rather than try to deny it, they went with the tactic of saying “well we’re allowed to because we own the process, not the voters”.
This in spite of their own charter mandating that they stay neutral and not favor any candidate over others during the primary process.
I don’t think the word “rigging” tells an accurate story. I do think they pulled strings to get all the establishment candidates to Voltron into Biden for super Tuesday. I do think they influenced their cohorts in the media to make Bernie look like he couldn’t win the general. I don’t believe they messed with the voting process itself, which is what “rigging” tends to invoke.
Again, context matters. In a legal process there are different times to make different arguments, and a good lawyer makes use every argument available. This particular argument dealt with whether or not the court had jurisdiction in the matter, so it came early in the process.
What exactly does that mean? Is every member required to be personally neutral in even their personal relationships outside the DNC? Does that extend to Obama who is neither a board member or on staff at the DNC? Being neutral is a good idea, but that rule is pretty meaningless.
To be clear, I am no apologist for the Democratic establishment. I blame them more for Trump than the Republicans. That’s why I want progressives to show up and vote them out in primaries. Giving the false impression that their vote won’t count is counterproductive.
That very much qualifies as rigging.
How do you know? They control every part of it and have shown that they’re not above board in general 🤷
That’s not how it works, no. A good lawyer chooses a coherent strategy that’s both likely to be successful and in accordance with the wishes of the client.
The DNC itself has a lot of skilled lawyers and would have agreed on a strategy long before a word was said in court. This was their choice, not that of a neutral lawyer just doing his darndest.
Agreed
Only when it comes to unprincipled hypocrites who don’t care about the spirit of the rules but only how they can bend and break them to further their own agenda.
Only to the extent that those relationships affect the primaries. Which they very much do when you’re doing everything you can to favor a specific candidate.
He’s still a member of the party, one of if not THE most influential and thus powerful one at that, with more weight behind his words than most. That great power comes with great responsibility
Could have fooled me, what with all that apologia 🙄
On that we agree, at least.
That would be great, if the DNC would ever allow it.
Fixed that for you.
To be clear, that’s the only thing you have ever been or ever will be.
Pointing out that the party does everything it can to ratfuck progressives means that they might respond to pressure to stop, and you don’t want that.
Oh, fuck off. I’ve been brutal towards the establishment. I just want them beaten, and pretending elections are rigged is counterproductive to that end. You’re nothing but a right wing agitator.
Why would they? It’s apparently working. Now who is suddenly feeling charitable towards the establishment? You think they can be shamed into playing nice? You are so full of shit.
Yes, you brutally defend them every chance you get no matter what they do.
Yeah, they’ll only change by unconditional enthusiastic support every time they betray anyone to your left.
Uhuh. Read someones history before making that judgement. Disagreement with your bad takes does not make someone a centrist.