Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So basically, you are saying that political elites in this country simply pick the candidate and any votes made by the people are a sham despite what they say, and they take money from us on the premise that they run elections where they tell the people that our votes matter, and you are OK with this and don't think it fraud at all?

The people who are making this lawsuit disagree.

Oh, and the primary process rigging went beyond simply the presence of super-delegates in this case, and I believe that is what the suit alleges.

Shoot! I sure hope you never, ever vote, and I wonder at all why you even discuss politics. You clearly aren't even in the echelon that makes any of the decisions and never will be, so why does it even matter what you think?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Irishhaf

Probably because just like obama.. they were always moderates who the right propagandized as some Muslim socialist antichrist trying to destroy merica...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA you think Feinstein is a moderate... jeebus mate she has been a charter member of the wackadoo left since she became mayor of san fran in the late '70s.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ntech

You mean America got the president it deserved..

And we all know how the history books will be recording this chapter..

“What the helll were they thinking?”

Yup. When they tell the story of how a government can run amok and it took the US electing a frigging Reality TV host, with an orange hue to expose just how damn corrupt it had become.

At some point, you may wake up and realize how much you owe Don for his role in all this. Or, perhaps you will just remain a little partisan hen, cackling away for your party.

originally posted by: dashen
wow ramen noodles is cooked for sure. These have got to be the worst lawyers and the dumbest Crooks. But then again this is Florida and anything is possible.

I lost it at Ramen Noodles! I dont think I can unsee it now

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So let me get this right.

Yeah let's get this straight.

For the last year the usual suspects have been incessantly whining about rigging an election. So much they are using Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate the winner.

They turn around and make the argument that election rigging is protected under the first amendment.

Gold metal mental gymnastics.

seriously though.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Byrd


I think the point is most people don't realize the Republican and Democrat parties are private organizations. A lot of people don't understand that the party can legally choose the candidate. They don't understand super delegates.

But that isn't how it is represented to voters. On that alone, it's dishonest.

The next DNC primary will be interesting.

Why do candidates bother spending advertising money to get "votes"? Why bother traveling the country holding rallies?

The DNC clearly stated it's fine with just picking whoever the hell they want.

Why even bother with their primaries at all?

Dog and pony show.

originally posted by: Lumenari

Not true at all, actually. The founding fathers were looking at things that were happening in England, France, Spain, Italy. They put together a document that handled pretty much every contingency. Their only worry, if you read the papers, was the influence of the banks. The two current political parties are the embodiment of the banks.

No, they didn't want political parties, they would have been aware of the possibility though. I have done my reading thanks.

George Washington, political party wrangling "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."
George Washington, "Beware the spirit of the party" In a way they understood how bankers, or anybody for that matter could badly influence parties to the bankers own ends.
Nor did they want a democracy,
"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." — James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10.
Just such an occasion rose when factionalising came about when attempting to ratify the constitution itself, could foreign bankers have influenced some of the factions, or some of the founding fathers? I don't know about that, but there was plenty of foreign debt, however there was a lot of factionalism, and it stayed that way for a long time, even as the constitution was ratifed through America...that was likely the precursor to the parties.

However, parties, nor democracy was not what the founding fathers wanted.

I think there's already legal precedent in the United States for allowing stolen documents to be admitted as evidence.

At least the DNC is coming clean, that it believes in its heart that election fraud is a good thing worthy of American values. Of course, this is utter bullstank and undermines democracy at its very core. The DNC should be held accountable for its actions and all monies returned to Bernie Sanders so he can use those funds for a fair race in 2020.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Byrd


I think the point is most people don't realize the Republican and Democrat parties are private organizations. A lot of people don't understand that the party can legally choose the candidate. They don't understand super delegates.

But that isn't how it is represented to voters. On that alone, it's dishonest.

Oh, I agree it's dishonest. They've gotten away with it all these years because this is possibly the first time a challenger in the primaries was so obviously more popular than the eventual candidate. The huge crowds for Bernie combined with the digital age where anyone and everyone could post videos showing that crowd was their undoing. In the past, most people saw what the news showed them and nothing more. Is it legal? Yes. Is it dishonest? Yes.

Let's not beat around the bush...

The DNC WAS HRC in this past Democrat Primary.
Therefore, DNC lawyers are REALLY arguing that Hillary Clinton had the right to rig her own election in her favor.

So to wrap this thread up, our Dem members are basically not surprised and frankly don't care, because "we're like a fan club".


BS.

Total BS. You are the problem.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Let's not beat around the bush...

The DNC WAS HRC in this past Democrat Primary.
Therefore, DNC lawyers are REALLY arguing that Hillary Clinton had the right to rig her own election in her favor.

Pretty much.

But hey, that's A OK.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Irishhaf

Probably because just like obama.. they were always moderates who the right propagandized as some Muslim socialist antichrist trying to destroy merica...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA you think Feinstein is a moderate... jeebus mate she has been a charter member of the wackadoo left since she became mayor of san fran in the late '70s.

Feinstein didn't even get their endorsement this go round.

The times are a changin, just not what they expected.

This case is like how Democrats swore Obama care wasn't a tax to the public, but then when they got to the Supreme Court they argued it was a tax...

originally posted by: Edumakated
This case is like how Democrats swore Obama care wasn't a tax to the public, but then when they got to the Supreme Court they argued it was a tax...

Yeah that was gold. Nothing says we're lying to the public like "judge, we were lying to the public".

originally posted by: smurfy

That's the most important bit, the American founding fathers wanted not..political parties, nor democracy, both bad words. Further, to avoid frivilous popularism, there came the electoral college with the intent to disallow the snake oil salesmen, or a total idiot, as a President. Probably,

the intention there was to monitor a candidate for eligibility...well let's face it, it was. That didn't last too long though, nor is the electoral college a useful tool anymore..for a long time, since...damn it all, some dick thought it was a great idea to have political parties, and while those parties have the sway over the next Mr President, and all the caveats attached to that.
The thing is, the constitution wasn't written for today, it was written for yesterday...forward looking as it may have been at the time, but with a different conception, perhaps based on assumption, that things wouldn't change so much, as to be in the negative.
The law is pretty much all over the shop these days, re the constitution. It just does not work with political parties, and their institutions, as well as,[fill this space institutions] and ironically the advancement of knowledge and technology, (the real exceptionalism) and heightened awareness all round.

originally posted by: artnut

In other words, you're fine with this, as long as it's your party doing it.

It's nuttin' to do with me mate, I was talking about the FF!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no right that allows for infringement of another individuals rights.

None.

The DNC is lying.

Which ironically, IS considered free speech.

It is also called Fraud and theft by deceit.

Exactly. The DNC accepted large amounts of money under the pretense that the primary was fair. They have now tacitly admitted this was a false premise. They are guilty of defrauding their donors.