Full Meltdown ON--DNC Lawsuit Dismissed
DNC FRAUD LAWSUIT DISMISSED yesterday:
In his ruling, Judge Zloch wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their injury, calling it “too diffuse” for Federal court. Despite the dismissal, Zloch did state that the court assumed the basic claim made by the plaintiffs to have been true; that the DNC acted against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton despite outward claims of neutrality.
This judge basically threw his hands up in the air and said "I can't find the class definition, so I have to toss this case out". Which he could perfectly legally do--and it's actually a good thing he did, because scuttlebutt now is that there WILL BE a refiling of this matter in that court as....something that answers to that dilemma (more on that in a bit).
There had better be. Because if there is not a court in the United States that can look at this travesty and see that a private corporation has no damned business governing and dominating the American public's voting process, we are well and truly fucked as a democratic republic. A private company does what it wants ONLY for itself and its shareholders. Why the hell is a private company running public elections??? Particularly when it's also been made obvious, in a multitude of ways, how this private company--the Democratic National Committee--flat-out manipulated the various processes of our public elections to the point where a lot of questionable or obviously criminal activity was documented to have taken place.
If that all stands unchallenged in a legal sense, what other remedy is there? None? If there is none, folks, I would submit to all of us that everything we were ever taught about American History is wrong. I don't know about anybody else, but I am livid right now.
Hopefully, the way Judge Zloch wrote this opinion, there's some kind of opening to be exploited, where the case can be properly filed with a defined class or actual people showing harm in need of remedy:
In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations to be true-that the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz held a palpable bias in favor of Clinton, and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponents.
However, he also goes on to say, in the very next sentence:
Plaintiffs assert several fraud-type claims. But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC's claims of neutraility.
Now you tell me--what in the almighty fuck were people supposed to do to "act upon the DNC claims of neutrality? That's in a BYLAW. The DNC doesn't go around saying they're "fair and impartial" because THEY ARE NOT. Thanks a lot, Your Judgeship.
SO. Here we are. Has it been ever thus--old rich white guys in suits, smoking cigars and choosing our betters for us? Yes, it has. But the last time this kind of thing came to a real boil, it was 1968 in Chicago, where all hell broke loose when "guys with cigars in the back room" decided some stuff and Hubert Humphrey ended up the candidate for President on the Democratic side (and not the Not-Corporate Guys, George McGovern & Eugene McCarthy). In the context of the times--then, as now--this was a major sticking point for any American voter considering themselves to the 'left' of the political spectrum. It was said then, as now, that if there is not a fair impartial process for selecting candidates for a runoff to select the party candidate for the general election, then to say we are a "democratic republic, with each person given one voice in government" is complete bullshit. And in case anyone to the right of the spectrum is reading this? The RNC just got handed license to do the same damn thing to you. Not that it wasn't already. If you think Donald Trump ran for POTUS out of the goodness of his patriotic heart, please, think again.
Sigh. Will we ever learn? There's a great history timeline of the DNC, circa 1968 here. To give context here, it was after THAT convention--where people got beat up, tear-gassed, and all kinds of other state-sanctioned fun--the DNC wrote the bylaw in question in this case--the one dismissed Friday.
This shit wasn't SUPPOSED to happen again.
And yet, here we are. Cait Johnstone, as usual, nails it with her own scathing reply. But her editor can have that tombstone. Those fuckers can stay dead, and rot in Hell. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire...
Comments
To clarify
I think it's a good thing Zloch tossed this over the claim that he couldn't define the class for this purpose. Because then it would have bogged down in fights over "who is a member". That's the *one* thing that little DNC toady lawyer got right. That dumb fuck. I hope he sees his own repercussions for admitting that they don't have to follow their own damn bylaws.
So now we know the primaries are basically a scam.
Scream about Russia not the information released.
Scream about evil third parties.
Fuck democracy.
The duopoly belongs to us!
Republicans 28%
Democrats 28%
Independents 41%
The primaries are a scam, The People have NO VOTE
Indeed. And what are we going to do about it?
I do what I can, send no money, give no vote and
demonstrate, not much I know, it's one hell of a mountain to climb.
This might save the DNC.
The DNC is divided and broke so it's a great opportunity for Tom Perez to find the middle ground.
Both sides have a point:
Some
-believe in democracy.
-can't raise money or win a fair primary because they suck.
Both sides can find common ground and unite! Some say the primaries are unfair, some say fair primaries are unnecessary. And we all know how expensive they are.
So everyone hates primaries and we can't afford them anyway - eliminating them is a cost effective, pragmatic solution we can all rally around.
#Whigged
THIS! The best thing to do to the Democratic Party
at this point is take it out back, beat the living shit out of it, and stick a sword through its chest--where a heart should be but is not.
Easy pickins. If no other party arises to take its place--indeed, if no other movement is allowed to step up and be heard, this country's Constitution is toast. It may be already...
That sword is gonna have to be made of dragon glass or
Valyrian steel. /s
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
the sword
Where the F is Excalibur when we need It?
We could use its rightful Wielder, too. (I always wonder why King Arthur didn't reappear as the legends promise when Maggot Thatcher and Tony Bland, er, Blair were running Britain.....)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
LOL! I wish Arthur had rescued GB from
Morgana Thatcher. But there is another--Jeremy Corbyn!
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Jeremy Corbyn
Maybe Jeremy Corbyn is Arthur!
If Mr. Corbyn starts showing up wearing cutlery of unknown origin.....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides
Perhaps a pitchfork?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Jeremy Corbyn's pitchfork
If Jeremy Corbyn gets a pitchfork, a torch, or both from the hand of an arm clothed in white samite broaching the surface of a lake......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Here is the thing: Guilt trip
If you don't vote you are voting for the other side. It's your fault Trump won.
Even if you do vote, you don't count. We will give you whom we want.
Don't forget, vote least bad, suckers.
please send your donations to xxxxx, not as if that matters, we have better and more important donors than you plebs.
Gullible fools.
Here's the thing about their "guilt trip" to that end
It has to make me feel guilty. I laugh in the face of those people, trying that shit on me, and I tell them exactly why that is. And now I can show them a judge's opinion:
Those little DNC minions can kiss my ass. I don't give a damn what they think and I never will. There's no longer enough of them to matter to me.
IMHO this lawsuit exposes a bigger issue
which you so ably defined in your essay. And that is this:
This is something I have asked in the past, partially because of the concept of closed primaries which are financed by our tax dollars for the benefit of a private entity (one political party or another) to chose its candidate(s). With the issue of fraud as was clearly the case in the Presidential primaries this year, the idea of my tax dollars being used to fund this charade makes me even more angry. In the end, the voters and the public are screwed while being asked to foot the bill for said private entity.
Niko House seems to believe that all is not lost yet too.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b5r3PkeLoo&t=854s]
Edited because I am an idiot at posting a video.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yup
it really did expose that. And it was exposed by the DNC's own attorney.
Surely some legal team can do something with that? Could a voter point to that and call themselves "injured"? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but as we can all see--should we open our eyes enough to look at this--the American Political Party Primary process is officially a sham. A charade. A lie.
A voter claiming injury
IANAL, but why not? As you point out, our tax dollars fund the primaries. When our own money is spent in such a way that we have no choice in the matter, it seems there should be some angle here?
Seems like a criminal act - misuse of public funds? n/t
Fighting for democratic principles,... well, since forever
@fight2bfree
And elicited money from defrauded voters and the American public under false pretenses and made a mockery of what was intended to be a democracy as a private agency running fake elections in order to provide a limited (in at least one case proven to be privately pre-hand-picked) and faked 'choice' between two self-interested and unethical candidates presented by two private parties, both candidates acting against the public interest and for private interests (including themselves) at the expense of the public and country which the winning candidate would have to swear to serve the interests of, in upholding their Constitutional rights, in order to qualify for such public office that s/he intended to abuse and betray.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Injured? They stole money from Bernie supporters.
By-laws be damned. Any reasonable voter, living in a democracy, particularly in America, would expect the primary race for the President of the United States to be a fair and competitive contest. If the winner could be or had been "predetermined", a reasonable man would assume that there would be no need for a contest or the solicitation of money to pay for a particular candidate's bid to win such contest. Based on this reasonable assumption, reasonable people, many poor who couldn't afford to give, were solicited for money under false pretense.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I don't disagree at all
- the problem was "trying to define who was injured". The judge was right, there, because a class action suit has to have a definable class.
Bernie voters! Well yeah, but how do you prove you voted for him? Do you see the problem with that? They'd never agree on recompense because they'd never agree on who was part of the class.
There has to be a way to define "who was injured" to the point where they have standing in court. That's what Niko House seems to be alluding to, and I agree.
Bernie's campaign donors certainly would have standing . . .
. . . and constitute a class. They are identifiable -- required to be so -- and donated to the campaign under the assumption that the Dem candidate with the higher poll numbers against Republican contenders would be the best choice to run in the general. They'd grown up being told -- in schools, by the government, by the politicians of those parties themselves -- that we live in a democracy where anyone can be president. Turns out, we now know only the privately determined candidate can have a shot at that. There's your fraud right there. Injury (loss of those campaign donations to a scam), expectation of a level playing field, knowing actions on the part of the DNC leadership to skew that playing field. That's fraud. And agency. And an aggrieved class.
It doesn't do anything to recompense those who only voted for Sanders and had no other loss but their disappointments, but think of the process of getting justice for the campaign donors. All the little donors. Think of discovery. Think of the utter demolishing of the propaganda. Think of a party having to declare bankruptcy (seriously, they ain't gonna pay out, are they?), and think of whether anyone in his/her right mind would ever vote for a Democrat again. Think of the Clinton family, team, and minions being logged in the history books as a criminal enterprise whose nefarious actions and hubris sparked the demolition of the "greatest nation" on earth.
There'd be a chance then that a third party would arise to embrace those who want something other than what we have now. Or the empire would simply disintegrate. Sooner rather than later would result in less damage.
They WERE identified in the case
The original complaint has them all listed by name--that is, the ones who completed paperwork to be a plaintiff. This is not the problem--the problem is that a "class action suit" wouldn't just apply to them. The court would have had to define the class and the Becks really didn't do that--that was the DNC attorney's beef, and like I said, that's the one thing he got right. It was up to the plaintiff's counsel to define that class before they file. They didn't go into court and specifically say "Anyone who donated" was injured. They tried to make it broader (class action), and gave the judge the opportunity to dismiss it based on that.
That's the *only* thing the judge really based his dismissal on and he did it "without prejudice", which means the case can be brought again. And that is a very good thing.
Why not the class of Bernie contributors? Under
capitalism wouldn't being misled into contributing to something the DNC assured was a lost cause be fraud by the DNC even though they didn't solicit the funds?
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Yup! And that's what I really don't understand
Why was it a class action suit? My guess is that all the Regular Folks who donated couldn't afford to file suit on behalf of themselves, let alone others.
That's all I got--I agree with you, the donors were an identifiable class. My best guess is there was something else about taking that route that caused a legal issue. I don't know what it could be, though...
This makes me wonder
since I am not an attorney, I can wonder about stuff that may not be addressed under the law. What if the Becks simply filed the lawsuit on behalf of the named plaintiffs and fought it in court on that basis? Could it then be expanded by the court if judgment was found in favor of the named plaintiffs?
The reason I am asking this is that if the named plaintiffs are found to have been defrauded by the DNC, then wouldn't anyone else have the right to make that same claim as a result of the judgment?
I think most people want to see a judgment more than just being able to get their money back from an already bankrupt (nearly fiscally and totally morally) organization. I also want to see the way our elections are conducted in a fairer way also.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
That is the heart of all of this....
Yes. And then they'd have to determine who would qualify to be a member of The Class, in order to rule in favor of it.
This is where I'm stuck, too. IF the class WAS defined by the Becks before they went in there, then the judge is full of shit, because anyone with donor receipts to Sanders campaign would be part of the class. If it was not, then the ruling was correct, and it would be impossible to settle on exactly *who* is part of the class. What I got out of it was Zloch, telling the Becks to go redefine the class in a much more airtight way, and come back with a new complaint. I'm still reading all the testimony, I'll let you know if I come upon something...
We can't prove that we voted for Bernie
but many can prove that they donated to him, or to the DNC.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@lunachickie
All American citizens, not just all American voters, are harmed by electoral cheating.
America should be bringing
this suitcriminal charges against the lot of those involved and would be, if it were not the sort of criminally run-by-hostile-self-interests banana republic which enables and protects its lackeys to foster this situation, for the corruption to spread and the American people and country to be variously further drained, poisoned, dispossessed, disinformed and crippled.Edited because I missed a letter in a word. It's a tradition now...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Remember the demands for closed primary elections by the
Democratic Party faithful [Including Markos]? When the system created by both parties to exclude all others is also applauded by the same people. They have no right to complain about the results, none whatsoever. They help undermine democracy every day.
another Niko House video on the subject
This comes to us courtesy of The Humanist Report:
[video:https://youtu.be/4hZHQHb0H0o]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
For those who do not know, Niko House
was ground zero in identifying that the Clinton campaign had moles embedded in Bernie's campaign. He was the first one to call it to national attention when the NC director (Aisha Dew) for Bernie's campaign was subverting it. Remember the dustup involving Rev Barber? That was Aisha Dew's machinations designed to cause trouble for Bernie among the black voters. Niko was a major volunteer in the campaign. He has since moved to south Florida and has been working with the Becks on the DNC fraud lawsuit.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Is anybody here really surprised
that the Establishment protects and supports the Establishment?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Yes
You're surprised?
(I think you were saying that you did expect the Establishment to defend the Establishment, n'est-ce pas?)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I snark alot
Not at all.
I'm not the least bit surprised. But I'm damned tired of nothing being done about it.
I knew the antifa intervention at Charlottesville was meant
to be a distraction from something. Now I know what.
Bye bye Democratic Party.
Mary Bennett
If they were trying to destroy the brand
, they will soon see how they've exceeded everyone's expectations with it. The Democratic Party is done, no matter how much money is thrown at it to make a silk purse out of that fucking pig.
Re: The Democratic Party is done
Why hasn't Bernie addressed this?
He stayed silent all through the primary while there was overwhelming evidence that it wasn't being run 'fair and square' like he admitted in an interview after it was over.
I kept expecting him to speak out about all the ways his supporters were stripped of their right to vote in this country.
If Bernie won't address this scandal, then why should I believe anything he is saying during his many speeches that have vaulted him to the most influential senator in the country.
If he is actually this person, then I expect him to address this.
If he doesn't, then ............. Bernie!
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Isn't it obvious
yet that Bernie Sanders was threatened if he didn't keep his mouth shut?
We all wondered that during the Convention. If he said this specificallyafter the election?
there's your answer.
No it isn't obvious
He wasn't 'threatened' until the convention which gave him plenty of time to address these issues while the primary was happening.
Dammit Janet wrote about how her party affiliation was changed without her knowledge and that there wasn't anything she could do about.
How many Americans were refused the right to vote, and the person who they wanted to vote for stayed silent?
Change Bernie supporters to Hillary supporters and imagine the out roar if that had happened.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
How do you know that?
You don't. Neither do I, but if you can believe there was coercion and threats, then you have to believe they could have happened at any point during the primary.
No it isn't obvious, thanks for asking.
What's obvious to me is Bernie's mastery of propaganda and populism, not that anybody "threatened" him. Unless you consider the Clintons' promises threatening, like the mafia or something. He passed more bills under Bill Clinton with a Republican congress then he ever did under Obama, by far. He has backed the Clintons since forever, endorsing and campaigning for both. That is how you curry favor with a Clinton, that is the how the back room works. Obviously, heh.
good luck
Did you support him as a candidate?
If you did, can you please explain why? (edited to add the question) When did that support change?
You didn't support him at all, did you?
eyo? Ever.
If that's wrong, please tell us when your support changed. Was it when, like for snoopydawg, he said nothing after the convention?
Please, tell me what he was supposed to say, when was he supposed to say it, and how was he supposed to get the word out? Who was going to help him? What Televised Media would have given him the time of day?
And btw, yes, I do:
You really think that damnable, cheating, crooked woman is as pure as the snow? Yeah, like you said, "good luck".
For Bernie Sanders to have "said something", we'd have to have a functioning media and a functioning judiciary. We have neither.
You misread my comment
I was upset all through the primary where there was obvious ratfuckery happening to his supporters who were not able to vote and he did not address it, not his silence after the primary was over.
The Nevada caucus showed how the voting laws were not enforced.
The event was to start at 10am, yet while many of his supporters were still outside the voting area, the woman who was running it took a voice vote at 9:30am and it was plain that the NO votes were much more than the YES votes, yet she went with the YES votes anyway.
This is when people got upset and said that this caucus was not being run according to the rules.
This is just one of the many examples of how the primary was stolen not just from Bernie, but his supporters.
I have no problem if you have a different opinion than I do, and that you see things differently.
We may never know if he was threatened or not, but what I do know and as the judge ruled, the DNC f*cked us over and they made sure that Hillary would win the primary, even though the polls showed that she would lose to Trump, but Bernie would have won.
And we are facing dire consequences of their decisions because what the GOP and the Trump administration and the people he appointed to various positions are going to try to do to everyone who isn't rich.
Dire as in people will die if they are able to gut the social programs that people rely on.
This shit can be placed directly on the DP, the DNC and everyone who are okay with what happened during the rigged primary.
I am on this list of people that the republicans are targeting.
ETA: you make a good point about who would have covered his message that his supporters were being unable to vote. We know that there was a deliberate media blackout for covering his campaign. But he might have told his supporters that he has seen what had been happening during the primary. He could have validated what people said they had been experiencing when they tried to vote.
If this would have worked or not, I have no idea. But thousands of people shining a light on this might have changed what was happening.
I have no idea. The only thing I know is that this election is totally invalid imo. This is they type of crap we see in other countries, not in in the USA.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Not at all
What was he supposed to say? When and where was he supposed to say it?
I don't have a problem with disagreement. I just want someone--anyone--calling Bernie Sanders out for being a "sheepdog" tell me what exactly they expected him to do and how they expected him to do it, given the media climate we live in today.
Also
he may have done this.
How would we know if he said it or not?
I don't mean to be disagreeable with you (of all people here!) and I'm not. I just practically foam at the mouth when I see the word "sheepdog" because it makes no sense either. You don't get to amass the record the man has, and turn on a dime like that. I don't know how else to put it...
I haven't called Bernie a sheepdawg in this thread
I sincerely thought that he was running to win the primary. However, I did think that there were many areas that he could have gone after Hillary. Especially when she and Chelsea attacked his plan for universal health care and told everyone that if he became president that their health insurance was going to be dismantled.
Once your opponent starts telling lies about your platform, there is no need to hold back. People will say that Bernie wasn't going to go negative on Hillary, but telling the truth about her and her history isn't being negative.
What I feel is the important issue here is how the DNC broke their charter and did everything they could to make sure the worst candidate ever won the primary and setting her up to lose to the second worst candidate.
The Caitlyn article was on point, as she usually is. From this day forward, people will see the DNC for what it is.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
I know, and didn't mean to imply that
*you* used that word, so I apologize if it came off that way!!! But that word gets used far too much, and has often pointed out a need to re-consider how healthy it is to be allies with those who just won't let that word go. I look at that shit, and it just looks all "gas-lighty" to me (YMMV, of course)
To begin with, those who fling that invective around don't ever seem to proffer a realistic assessment of what they think he should have done or could have done (whereas you have A) not called him that and B) stayed engaged without losing your shit!
). They just throw the damned word around, not understanding how much it helps Her Heinous.
Who they also claim to despise. Ya, sure...
No problem
I wasn't offended. This is what I love about this site. We can have disagreements without taking it personally.
The best thing to happen would be for Bernie to write a memoir about this primary and release it either after he retires or dies.
Especially if the DP and the DNC somehow are able to survive this
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
SD, Chelsea was correct
that Bernie's 2013 proposal would 'dismantle' all federal/state public health care programs--except for the VA health care system and the Indian Health Services.
Now, Chelsea did totally mislead folks that his plan would leave them 'high and dry' (or uninsured), since Bernie's new health care system would have picked up immediately upon the termination of all of our current programs--Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPs, etc.
Hey, gotta run into town for supplies, since we may get a little bit of rough weather due to Harvey. But, I'm going to post a link to his bill, and a short blurb, in hopes that it will be clear up what Bernie has proposed in the past.
(Of course, his new/upcoming bill may be quite different. Time will tell. Remember, although his staff produced a brochure during his Presidential run--which I posted a link to, less than a week ago--they never actually produced legislation. Anyhoo, if I can find it, I'll post a piece I saw last week about his upcoming bill. Supposedly, it will be written along the lines of the California bill--it will not address funding, period. If that's the case, I can't imagine that it could even be put up for what is called a 'show vote.')
Bottom line, what he proposed in 2013 was not Expanded and Enhanced MFA built upon our current (Traditional) Medicare program. It was actually built around, or as a compliment to the ACA. I'll find the section that mentions dismantling all the other federal health programs, when I get back--since it's buried in the text. But, here's an Introductory Section that indicates the purpose of his proposal.
I'll let others hash out what his other intentions are/have been. My primary concern is that the 'branding' of a single-payer proposal as a Medicare-For-All bill--when it isn't one--appears to do nothing but cause more confusion, and spread more disinformation. To my knowledge, to date, Conyers' bill is the only MFA bill that's been introduced. And, Stabenow's 'Medicare at 55 Act' is a far cry from MFA, too.
BTW, a piece came down to my phone which summarizes an interview that he had with Ari Melber on MSNBC a few weeks ago. Maybe it will shed some light on his thinking about election fraud.
Good essay.
Mollie
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yes, I supported Bernie with money and phone banking
I did it for his best words, they were definitely the best as far as my personal situation went. You can look up my daily BernieNewsRoundup rah-rah comments every day for a year over at the other blog.
The California vote is what broke me, it is almost too hard to talk about, too hard to remember the shenanigans that went on. I have no respect at all for the D party in California, or the national Ds, they are dead to me. My brother was Clinton delegate in the 90s, it is how I met Donna Brazile before she lost her mind to money, Before they all did.
Bernie is the Democratic Party Outreach Coordinator, so there lies the dichotomy of my "support" for him. And he is not speaking against imperialism, the wars are even worse now. Fuck! My situation is rapidly growing worse too. Huh. Still unrepresented, disenfranchised by Bernie and the Ds is where I am.
I hope your situation is better, whatever it may be. Lots of people are doing fine, over half the country.
good luck
The shenanigans that went on
...
Again, what was the man supposed to do? Who was he to tell this to? Who was going to broadcast that in an impartial way? Was he to file a lawsuit? Why didn't he?
Why wouldn't he, if he wasn't threatened? You don't get to have a 30+ year career in politics where you're demonstrably for the Common Man and then turn on a goddamn dime and turn into The Enemy overnight.
BTW, I'm not reading anything at that other blog. It's a Gaslighting Propaganda Mouth Organ run by a little man with Little Man issues. I haven't taken it seriously for a long time now, and neither should you. Cry me a river. If you can afford to even live in California, you're better off than I am already, so we'd be well-served to not make this personal.
Apparently he was threatened with two book deals
and a vacation house.
Keep going.
LOL!
Yeah, uh-huh. To begin with, I'm pretty sure Sanders had published at least one other book, long before he ran for POTUS. So that may be a complete non-starter.
As for the house?
The Mafia did that kind of shit a lot.
Your turn! Please demonstrate some more of that sincere support for the man that you always had...
"Your turn!" Uncle! I give.
sorry I can't keep radically agreeing with you, too nenni ekki. But thank you for the great rant essay it was a good one. I really enjoyed jumping in and spewing my opinion, it helps clarify my Bern memories and how I approach the future. Nothing is solid, nothing set in stone, I like to hear everything from all sides.
Happy to keep reading all the comments, the back and forth. Cheers.
good luck
Lonestar Mike needs to make a graphic with
Markos as napoleon on his horse. This is what we call little man syndrome here. A napoleon complex.
My stepdad has this and he's constantly trying to prove that he's a bigger man.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Oh yeah!
I've often referred to markos as "Little Napoleon"
That picture ought to be around here somewhere, in fact....hang on...
This is the best I could do
@LoneStarMike
Dangit, I still have trouble with "replies" here!
Found it
.
.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
dingdingdingdingding!
As eyo smacks it clean out of the park......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Heh
do ya suppose that was an accident?
I'm waiting for CNN
to try and elevate this garbage:
Because that suit needs dismissed right now. As in the DNC case, there's no way to tell who was "harmed", because how do you prove that you voted for a particular Gooper?
in '68 the Non-Corporate Guy was Eugene McCarthy.
i've been re-reading Hunter Thompson's coverage of '68 and '72. the McGovern situation was closer to the Sanders situation than I remembered. if he had prevailed in November, the party bosses might have been neutered for at least 8 years, possibly leading to a Ted Kennedy nomination in 80. the biggest difference between 1972 and 2016: There were no superdelegates. HST writes, with no sympathy at all, of the state party bigwigs in places like NY and CA who had backed Muskie or HHH or some other hack, and found themselves shut out of the convention when McGovern swept those primaries in a big way. when McGovern lost, they were able to reclaim the party and, i presume, institute the superdelegate system to make sure they never got left out in the cold again.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Super Delegates
Why did we let them get away with that shit?
get away with shit
Just how were we able to prevent it?
As joe shikspack pointed out in another essay, it's always been just like this, always.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Well that's just it
I've been saying that since last year.
And yes, it has been ever thus--however, the difference is, in 1968, Democrats were placated and made to believe anew that they had a choice, with these "bylaws", and their addition of 'superdelegates' Now that we see, for all time, what a sham that was, we know we don't have a choice.
This is not a democracy. It's not a republic. It's a sham, unless we get our asses in the streets like they did in Chicago that year. And that ain't gonna happen, so we might as well bag it all and let the scum overrun us completely.
So what's it going to be, folks? I'm thinking at this point, it's time to either shit or get off the pot, as my dear departed mama used to say...
@lunachickie This was a republic
This was a republic. A flawed and fairly corrupt one. Now, well...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@thanatokephaloides As luna mentions
As luna mentions below, there was an actual historical change made in 1968. So, in my opinion, that means it wasn't always like this.
EDIT: Whoops, I was wrong. Looks like the first set of changes was made in 1970, and the second in 1984. I guess that explains why the elections have been shit since 1988.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
historical changes
Then those changes basically un-did the whole set of reforms which ended the smoke-filled room era, which lasted from roughly the 1820s to the early 1900s.
The only difference now is that the back rooms aren't smoky any more, as we now know how dangerous smoking is. Plus le change, plus le même chose.
Thanks for less than nothing, DNC.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides I really don't get
I really don't get why people make this argument. Is it because we want to believe that nothing has changed since y'all were kids? Because, in so many ways, that's not true.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
little has changed
Because most of the really bad shit about the ways in which we are governed today are the way they've usually been throughout American history.
The "good stuff" we in our late 50s and older grew up with was mostly due to reforms applied from the 1880s to the 1960s. We enjoyed these through most of the 1970s, but then Nixon, Carter, Ford, and Reagan were elected President, and with an increasingly friendly (fiendly?) Congress, rolled back those self-same reforms as if they had never happened.
The way things are now bear a frightening resemblance to the way they were in the 1880s: working class people's lives not mattering, party coronations arranged in back rooms, people's votes having little bearing on "election" outcomes...... it's as if the early- to mid-20th Century's changes had never taken place at all.
It's returned to "the way it's always been" -- which is bad news indeed for us!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Also
I still get McCarthy and McGovern mixed up, so thanks for the clarity
A litle clarification
Jared had something to say about that in his and Elizabeth's interview with H.A. Goodman last night.
Starting at the 18:40 minute mark H.A. Goodman asks:
Jared goes on to explain that in a motion to dismiss, which is the nmotion filed by the DNC lawyers, the court is required to assume that the allegations in the complaint are true. So that's why there's language in the order where the judge accepts the allegations are true because he's bound by that particular standard to decide the motion.
His answer ends at 20:43. Maybe if others listen they can explain it better.
(I'm not saying the court didn't believe it, I'm just trying to clarify that that's reason it was worded the way it was.)
That makes perfect sense
And in all likelihood it's a good assessment; I got a feeling from reading some of the testimony that the judge actually believed it, but got stuck on "who can seek remedy from his decision".
Did Beck mention the possibility of re-filing, and on what basis?
(sorry, I can't watch HA Goodman. I know he's done some fine work, but I wish he'd get a transcriber. There is just something about his delivery that really bugs me.
I don't know if Beck mentioned the possibility of refiling
Because I didn't listen to the whole thing.
But Niko House had a video (51 minutes) that sounds like they will.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b5r3PkeLoo width:450]
I think we'll have a better idea after tonight. Tonight Niko is having who he called the most rational one in the bunch - one of the other lawyers (Cullin O’Brien) on his show tonight. Not sure what time, though.
Here's a link to his channel
This was not a decision on the merits
This was a decision on a procedural motion made at a very early stage of the lawsuit. Whether the judge may believe that the DNC is a bunch of crooks who rigged the primary is irrelevant at this stage. There was no discovery, no trial on the merits, and no evidence formally presented for the judge to consider.
In deciding to dismiss the case, Judge Zloch did not say that the plaintiffs had failed to prove they were injured. The time for proving their case had not yet arrived. What he said (among other things) was that, in their pleadings filed in the case, the plaintiffs did not include sufficient allegations as to how they were injured.
In a civil action for fraud, the law requires that specific things ("elements") must be alleged. The judge decided that the plaintiffs' pleadings did not meet these requirements. But he dismissed the case "without prejudice", which means that plaintiffs can file a new lawsuit, hopefully in a way that would avoid this problem.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea
Wait, an entire class of people being deprived of money under false pretenses can't be recognized as something that should be recompensed? An entire population being deprived of fair elections isn't fraud, as well as something far worse?
'The law is a ass, a idiot' - and that's a good part of the problem right there.
(Computer is going haywire and options such as block-quote aren't showing, except as blank boxes. But at least it allowed me to search out the quote copied below...)
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1002.html
Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.
NUMBER: 1002
AUTHOR: Charles Dickens (1812–70)
QUOTATION: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
ATTRIBUTION: CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970). First published serially 1837–1839.
SUBJECTS: Law
WORKS: Charles Dickens Collection
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
on the cusp would have been able to explain this to us
unfortunately she is on safari and will be gone for two weeks.
If she emails me, I'll ask her to look into this and maybe we can understand it and why he ruled this way.
But she's going to be in the back country and probably won't have access to the internet.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
How do you prove that you acted in the belief of someone's
neutrality?
Isn't that like saying you shot someone b/c you were in fear for your life, so it's OK that you shot them? How do you prove you were in fear for your life, or that you weren't? How do you prove you were acting in the belief that the DNC was running a neutral, unbiased campaign when you cast your vote? How do you prove you were, at some point in the past, acting in any belief about anything?
Why are you upset that the White Sox threw the game? The White Sox organization never came out and said they were trying to win the game. Can you prove that you bought your tickets in the belief that the White Sox would try to beat the Cincinnati Reds in an honest competition?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Exactly
Because you can't prove who you voted for. That's where the "class action" failed, IMO. On the level of "legalese" and general jurisprudence, Zloch's decision makes some sense. To a point. I would assume that one can't define a 'class of voters' unless they have them submitted as part of the original complaint--unless it's a true class-action. In that case, they have to define the class before they go into court. I can't figure out how it is that anyone thought that could be defined later. So while it's quite the stretch (or technicality, if you prefer), it's probably legally sound.
Yet on other levels, it's complete bullshit. As you say, how do you prove any of that? You can't. I wonder if the Becks could use your baseball analogy to this end? What I'm left with is "they better start looking for all the Sanders supporters that actually gave money, and identify them" for the court, if they want to be part of the suit. That'll be a long list, but it will also be a "defined class" of people.
Does anybody know...
where I can find a copyable transcipt of the dismissal order?
The PDf text is coded not to copy to text.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'm able to read this on my iPad
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
I downloaded it to my PC
as a PDF and saved it as a different filename from here, - and I can copy/paste from there.
Not surprised at the outcome but the reaction to it.
I don't know which is worse. The dismissal of the lawsuit or the brain dead DLC/hilbots trying to defend their actions.
As one who demexit as soon as my state allowed it. This kills any chance of me coming back to "The Party" (as the article correctly states it). Which leave my choices in both '18 and '20 to either vote third party or stay home-which a lot of my friends are at this point doing.
So here's the thing regarding
So here's the thing regarding the primary for Bernie:
If he was truly trying to win it, then he was quite mediocre at it. He had several tools at his disposal to go after her, and he refused to use them. He even dismissed the email/server debacle which was clearly dragging her down. But he refused to use it.
He refused to call out all the rigging that went on during the primary. He had his moment during the convention to call it out and even go his own way, but he didn't. But fine, say he didn't do any of that. He then went to campaign for her, everything he railed against.
Talk about bad wars? Go vote warmonger Clinton
Talk about Wall Street destroying our nation? Go vote for Wall Street candidate Clinton.
Talk about climate change? Go vote for fracking Clinton
Talk about single payer? Go vote for "never, ever happen" Clinton
But fine, say he just had to do all of that. Now that the election is over, several months now, why stay with the corrupt and irredeemable Democratic Party? That's why he is called a sheepdog. He is luring people back into the fold of the corrupt, capitalist, imperialist party. What is stopping him from starting his own party?
Throughout these past few years he showed his colors which is more about keeping the Democratic Party alive then about the issues it seems he cares about.
Pages