@lunachickie

What thanatokephaloides said, times 99. (At least.) And I hope your situation improves soon!

That said, I personally don't feel that the lawsuits are all that close.

There's a difference between

a political party cheating financially contributing voters out of what was claimed to be a fair electoral contest

and a political party running on a platform thought to be unachievable by those organizing it.

The latter actually would be expected...

Electoral cheating maybe should be expected of both wings of the Two-Faced Corporate Party - although the Republicans have been, up until now, (at least in modern times,) far more blatant about it - but perhaps not so much of a Dem nomination. Even with the Clintons involved, the cheating was mindboggling, with every one of those myriad cheat-schemes required to give Hillary Her Turn at losing the General again. And there's loads of evidence and indication of that cheating. But who knows what a corrupt judge may decide...

and hugs to you, #1.1 ... thank you

@lunachickie
about the D case, but should have been more specific. Deep State won't allow the D case to proceed. I mean, they can't jail the entire Village, and this case would practically implicate the entire Village.
But just the fact that somebody had the balls to file it - the trail of dead is long - is enough for us to make the case that the "System" is fucked.

#4.1

(the R lawsuit) will likely not see the light of day

The reason for throwing the suit out would in and of itself also establish a precedent.

I agree that this is a bullshit case and that the DNC case has actual merit. And what better way to squash any further movement on a case with merit, than by establishing an excuse to dismiss it?

All that being said, just remember that I truly hope I'm wrong about all this

@lunachickie and how absolutely correct!

Good to see you back (and/or front). Some idioms don't make sense. If you can only some else's back, they are going away from you, whereas you are approaching, thankfully.

#5.1 - doesn't matter when it is established, as long as it is.

Which lends a bit of weight to the big picture, which I find rather frightening. We could definitely be years away from precedence for the DNC case. Hell, it could take years to let other things run their course. Like on this GOP case--for all we know, the Mighty Wurlitzer could be cranking up to elevate this Frivolous Lawsuit as we speak! And of course President Trumpski could have himself a Tweet-fest over it and boy, wouldn't all that eat up a whole shit-ton of news cycle time?

@lunachickie An equally great part, if not greater, was the election fraud perpetrated by the Dem establishment in tinkering with primary rules, voting procedures, counting ballots cast accurately, etc.
Regardless of the DNC fraudsuit outcome, the election fraud beyond that determining the existing lawsuit was directly and materially affecting the outcome of an already pre-determined primary winner. It is to Bernie's discredit that he did not call out the clear violations of primary voting procedures DURING his campaign before the DNC convention. It is this lack plus DNC sheep-dogging which has sown significant doubts about a second presidential run by Bernie. But, in a converse of voting for the-lesser-of two-evils conundrum, we may have the fortunate choice of choosing the greater of several goods--e.g., Tulsi and Nina.

#7.1 Is it that steep?

the (R) lawsuit claims that they couldn't repeal Obamacare.

Sure! They're claiming the fraud was such that they knew they couldn't repeal it--but they'd have to know what the makeup of the House and Senate were ultimately going to be to do that, wouldn't they?

All of this is rather akin to predicting the future, and that's where propaganda could be used to blur the lines between the real differences between these two cases, so that The People decide they're exactly similar. A similar prediction can be made in the (D) suit, can't it? Yes, voters were defrauded of a choice of Bernie Sanders in the long run--absolutely. Did that fraud caused Bernie Sanders to ultimately lose the nomination? Of course it did! But isn't that also predicting the future?

What they can't get right in details, they'll use their dutiful media to fuck with, so that there's no peasant revolt. Cuz the whole DNC thing is really grown up, with the addition of the Awan Bros connection...

@Pluto's Republic (second comment)

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands.... The result of this development is an oligarchy of private capital, the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.

Thomas Jefferson and many others have warned us about this, and instead of it being addressed and changed, it has gotten worse each year. It got much worse during the Obama administration when income inequality was as bad as it was just before the Great Depression.
People blame the Bush administration for the global economic crisis, but they don't remember that Clinton set the crisis up for Bush.
Yes Greenspan did nothing to stop it because this had been planned since the days of FDR. And he only created the New Deal because the people were willing to do their own thing about it. Someone here stated that FDR saved our country's capitalistic ways when he created the New Deal when he had the chance to do something different.

Another member stated that the goal of our government isn't to bring other countries up to our standard of living, but to bring ours down to the other countries where people work for less than $2 a day.

#10.1

Which law settles the DNC suit already? Do you know of an existing precedent?

The outcome of the DNC case seems implied, to me, from the settled laws about issues that forcefully impact Democratic outcomes with undo influence. Citizens United, yes. The Party Bosses, definitely. I'm following the logic that I built in the argument I made above.

My instincts may be just so-so, however. I borrowed heavily from Einstein who wrote about this exact issue that emerges at the Federal level and across society. I'm certain he got it right. He said:

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands.... The result of this development is an oligarchy of private capital, the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

My conclusions about how to deal with the situation are more direct than than Einstein's prescient musings. I was quite serious about directy buying our desired legislation. It's expedient and possible. I'm not at all sentimental or nostalgic about democracy. Einstein would probably be surprised to learn that so little has changed since 1949. But that's actually the point when our current problems began. He speculated about the obstacles ahead:

...is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? …Under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo.

I can't decide whether the DNC case is really important or not, in the larger scheme of things.

::

You mention:

One of the things that's kept me so broke is pursuing of further education on propaganda and rhetoric.

That's exactly what I have been doing. I am thoroughly immersed. Now, I need to figure out how to turn a profit on it.

@Pluto's Republic

This was what the Super-delegate system was designed for — to force out certain winners and substitute Establishment picks...

... isn't it also what the Electoral College is more or less about? I don't see either Party trying to end the Electoral College. It's something the Party powerful can manipulate to get around the will of the voters.

If the DNC lawyer can make the case that whatever works is acceptable, no matter how fraudulent or dishonest, then the case will be made that our election system is a fraud and that our democracy is non-existent.

#10.2

I can see the distinction between the two lawsuits. But I get snagged on the "performance contract" that the People think they had with the Party. Is the Party really bound by their charter in practice? For the past four decades, the Party has managed to advance corporate interests, which is often in conflict with activist's interests and the people's wellbeing. Yet the People continued to give them money. Democratic Primary voting, controlled by the Party, was blatantly irregular in a number of states, with switched registrations and ballots thrown in the garbage. The Party stonewalled those who complained, and the People continued to donate.

It was always on the table that the Super Delegates can throw the election once voting is done, if they wish to choose a different candidate. The People know the final choice was never theirs in the first place. This was what the Super-delegate system was designed for — to force out certain winners and substitute Establishment picks. This is a known risk, regardless of how the unwanted candidate is dispensed with. Many walked away at that point, never to return. Those who remained sent more money. These actions could be interpreted as consent.

Still, I hope they prevail and get their money back — and further clarify for Democrats how their Party is designed to function.

@lunachickie that the Demonrats can't "just drone" the Becks, a huge brouhaha would ensue were that to happen in the present climate, BUUT, a big enough distraction might provide enough cover that a suicide pact in a hotel room scenario could then proceed.

#13.3

the DNC knowingly broke their rules

I wonder which slimy Party counselor lost their job over having gone down that road for the record? I don't remember the exact wording (though it's available on the Jampac site), but it was tantamount to "Yeah, we have bylaws, so what?"

So what? They want it both ways--they want to be a Private Company with Private Company laws to protect them, except they want to oversee a Public Election.

I would think that after the lawyer for the DNC admitted (it), there isn't any way they can roll the words back.

Precisely why they need that lawsuit to go away. That and the even-stickier sticking Awan Brothers escapades has really complicated things. They're not above creating diversion. And holy freaking crap, TPTB need a diversion right....now...

@Centaurea @Centaurea
But it was a long while back.

Sure thought someone with the DNC said it, but it could have been phrased like you say it was phrased.

Someone posted it here, though. I'll try searching for it . . . because I have to know now; but, please, others are encouraged to also search, because I generally suck at finding things using online search functions.

Edit: I found it, I think.

Even if the DNC wins the legal matter and the judge grants dismissal, they will have “won” by breaking Democracy. This is because the DNC has employed a scorched-earth approach in presenting their arguments for dismissal which goes: Regardless of the Party’s public face, they retain the right to choose candidates in secret, thereby screwing their constituents out of any meaningful representation in the democratic process. And that, they argue, is just the way politics rolls—you’re a moron if you don’t it see it.

emphasis mine.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/some-damn-fine-reporting-local-flori... by LoneStarMike

That's a quote from an article that LSM quoted, but I have not found the actual quote from an actual person and researching on a phone is tough. I'll leave that for someone else.

#13.3 The DNC has not admitted anything. In fact, in the hearing on the DNC's Motion to Dismiss, the DNC's lawyer specifically said they did not do it.

What he said was that even if they had chosen the candidate behind closed doors, they would have had every right to do so.