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

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
The gop bent the knee for a reason.. their big donors told them to..

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

It will be difficult for me to trust the primary process ever again.

What's even more disturbing than the fact that they did it is how many people seem to be ok with it.

Yes. It's partly ideological partisanship, part cognitive dissonance, and part just not understanding how such practices diminish real democracy.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
The gop bent the knee for a reason.. their big donors told them to..

There's plenty of big conservative donors that don't like Trump.

Of course, we all know your side isn't motivated by money at all. That's why Clinton campaigned in Wisconsin so much and barely spent any time in California soaking up checks...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
The gop bent the knee for a reason.. their big donors told them to..

Sure, do you think people like Clinton aren't the same?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

Sure, and I already wrote the gop off 16 years ago. But yes, conservatives on here need to realize the gop leadership is mostly corrupt too.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

I don't think many of us have any illusions about the GOP being more honest. But Trump managed to beat the GOP establishment and become the Republican candidate anyway. Their primary was actually legitimate, whether that was the intent or not.

I think where I depart is that I think Trump is still establishment.

a reply to: face23785

In 2012 it came out they rigged the votes, where Ron had won Iowa, they gave it and all the momentum to Romney. That's just one state in focus. The most important one. Then there's all the MSM work, the rigged polls, the rigged debates, etc.

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: Gazrok
It's an interesting truth about Ron Paul there... Yes, both parties do it.
However, I'm pretty confident the last thing the GOP leaders wanted was for Trump to win the primary...

What's even more disturbing than the fact that they did it is how many people seem to be ok with it.

I keep saying the same, especially to Sanders' supporters. I mean, how can you just sit by and be OK with it? At least be upset about it.

That's why it was so important for the DNC to have Sanders "sell out" publicly and go full force behind Clinton. It feels a bit of a betrayal on his part towards the Sander's supporters, and as such extinguishes a large bit of their/our fire. I mean I was a Sander's supporter, but now I wouldn't support him after seeing how easily he rolled over for a person who represented everything he supposedly stood against.

So while I no longer support Sanders, I do stand against the corrupt DNC, especially Hillary and what happened. The rigged primaries are just one aspect of the corruption I'm against.

If Sanders had fought this til the end, the out roar would have been unstoppable. Instead he rolled over like a dog for his masters.

I like to think he was forced into doing so through some kind of coercion, because otherwise he truly was nothing more than a corrupt sell out. I mean, not like to think... It's weird how I feel... I don't want to think the poor guy was threatened and forced in some meaningful way... cause well, that's terrible... but so is the alternative. It really sucks all around.

Ron Paul didn't sell out in 2008 or 2012. Sadly Dennis Kucinich did in 2008, he's still my 'buddy' though. It was Obama then. Versus Insane McCain. He should have known what Obama was though.

There are several problems.

Most sheep, I mean voters only believe what their news stations tell them. Meaning, most Republicans watch fox news and get a skewed view of life that leans to the political right and most Democrats watch MSNBC and get a skewed view of life that leans to the political left. That probably accounts for 70% of all voters who only believe what their told.

This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

That's why we keep voting for the same buffoons over and over again.

I don't like Trump, but he over came the status quo somehow, and Sanders almost overcame but the Democratic superdelegats make sure that that will never happen...ever.

originally posted by: amazing
There are several problems.

Most sheep, I mean voters only believe what their news stations tell them. Meaning, most Republicans watch fox news and get a skewed view of life that leans to the political right and most Democrats watch MSNBC and get a skewed view of life that leans to the political left. That probably accounts for 70% of all voters who only believe what their told.

This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

That's why we keep voting for the same buffoons over and over again.

I don't like Trump, but he over came the status quo somehow, and Sanders almost overcame but the Democratic superdelegats make sure that that will never happen...ever.

Precisely. Probably the most resistance I face from even smart friends is the idea that the media is extremely biased or even complicit. Most of my friends recognize problems with lobbying, foreign policy, or even individual politicians, but they react hard to any idea that the media is anything worse than just incompetent or partisan.

My roommate is brilliant af. However, the last two years countless things I've exposed him to he never heard of because he only listens to legacy media and journalists.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: JoshuaCox

To start with they were thinking Anybody But Clinton.

That's what got me out to vote. I didn't vote in the 2012 election. If Trump ran against a cactus I probably would've voted for the cactus. Anyone else I probably would've just stayed home. And I know a lot of people who feel the same way. A few of them wasted their vote on Sanders. Most of the people I know are moderate Democrats.

That's funny, because I've said that I would have voted for a wet paper towel over Hillary.

Beating Trump should have been easy. Bernie stood a good chance, but Hillary? No way.

LOL, just no.

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

If you paid attention to the argument and the case that's in court right now, you would know that no one is claiming the super delegate process is the problem. The problem is that the DNC is supposed to remain neutral (according to their own charter) but they actively schemed to get clinton the nomination. Further, people who donated to the DNC had a reasonable expectation that their money would be used to help further the goals of the DNC, but hillary was given control of the DNC without anyone knowing it long before she was the nominee. Combine this with the active bid to give hillary the nomination and you have a very strong fraud case.

But I'm glad that you have decided what's legal and what is not. I guess no one should ever sue again, just log on and ask joshcox!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It was disgusting. The most worthy representation of the people, the "mobs will" , was translated and refined into an acceptable trajectory for the whole nation only to be tossed aside.

Ron Paul was our man. DC refused him. They met karma through Trump.

Ron Paul would have worked with all sides and would have been able to make leaps and bounds of progress towards a more stable home for all. The solutions to systemic problems would have fallen into place.

Im not saying Trump is a type of revenge for Ron Paul. We just didnt forget. Ron Paul really doesnt get the credit he deserves for opening up the stagnant avenues of access to DC's inherited power in the eyes of all who see. It became clear what was being done. The rig was exposed and proven illogical.

He was the first tilt of the scale. He SHOULD have won. It would have been the smart move to not meddle with everything just because you can. Unfortunately, humans are absurd by nature so they refused him.

Balance is strength.

As a leftist, I've found myself agreeing with Ron Paul on foreign policy. Never thought it would happen, but I have respect. The old school left says the same stuff re imperialism. a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wait blame it on the Russian trolls that made Sanders lost. puahahaha the dumb5ss party, useful idiot Marxists will defend their own party even when they rig it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

When will the insanity on the left end?
.

RNC did the same thing to Ron Paul TWICE, and attempted to to Trump as well.

Had Ron Paul / Trump sued the GOP, you think their response would have been any different ?

Yep and had he won instead of McLame, who knows where this is now? The over spending problem would likely have been the most important issue rather than SJW overblown issues that are using the Alinksy playbook for marxists of divide and conquer.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

Even the media are on board with being hush hush on this part. That is very strange. Well, unless The R party is a fake uniparty as some of us suspect.

Ron was hosed in several states like Bernie and the media was quiet. This time Trump was not the R leadership's choice, nor was Cruz or Rubio, it was Bush. The problem for them is way too many people said "Hell NO!!" never Bush again. Then the D candidate got zapped as just another event that too were many having a real HN moment in the voting booth...

I really think the other two would have gotten the same treatment by the media, tailored for their perceived/and likely falsified sins to prevent the ruling Oligarch from losing a power struggle with the people.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I disagree, if Trump was establishment then he would execute the establishment bible ideology of
Open Borders
TPP
Free Trade
World Government
Paris Agreement World Government Scam
Anti American Business Policies to redistribute her wealth to create a One World Government
Gun Control to stop the resistance when they execute their One World Agenda.

All in which Trump is against. So yea he is pretty much not an establishment in my opinion.

The only group that believes in such nonsense is the Democrat Party 99% and Republicans prob 25% which are the Neocons. Right now Dems are the biggest threat to America. They have completely been hijacked and stoogies. All the other stuff doesn't matter because the establishment doesn't care especially about social issue nonsense and just used as a division mechanism.

That's how u identify an establishment shill. When they regurgitate nonsense on that list.

I think the evidence shows more that Trump is still anti-establishment, but that they did get to him on some level and have some influence.

I like to think he (Sanders) was forced into doing so through some kind of coercion, because otherwise he truly was nothing more than a corrupt sell out.

The new Lake House says otherwise... As do moves behind the scenes to keep the investigators for going after his wife's financial sinking of that college.

For me, Sanders had some good points, and some bad ones. The main problem I had with him though, is actually the same issue I had with Obama...here's a guy who's been in Congress a while, and so far, not exactly a shining star...so why all of a sudden, out of the blue, put him as a candidate? At least with Obama, it was a bit more obvious why. So, it screamed establishment setup. For Bernie, I think he was intended just to give the illusion of choice for the DNC. Then, when he actually gained too much traction, it became a problem. This really isn't even a theory, it's basically SPELLED out in the leaked emails.

That all said (about Obama), I do agree he was excellent at being a statesman and spokesperson for the US, I just don't like his policies.
.
Hillary though, isn't just pro-establishment, she IS part of the establishment...deeply embedded. I still feel we as a nation, dodged a HUGE bullet here. Sadly, their machinations will still bear fruit, they are just forced to do it slower, and differently. For example, just remember this post with the next mass shooting incident happens in March (probably even stick to schools, since it seemed so effective), to really fully mobilize the disarmament movement.