The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
Did you read the lawsuit?
I did not read the S&C and the article is unclear as to whether they are suing for damages based on DNC donations or Bernie donations. I was assuming the former as that seems more rational. If the latter then I think the case has even less merit. What about a political party would lead one to believe that it wouldn't have a preferred candidate? Is there a disclosure on a website? Is there something in the public bylaws? I would think there would need to be something to avoid a quick dismissal or judgment for the defendant.
The point of the post wasn't about the merits of the suit, it was about a defense argument. If you want to argue case merit, I suggest you read the complaint first. If you read it you will find the answers to your questions.
The DNC "appeared" and claims to be neutral but "in fact" wasn't based on the information leaked online. If the DNC "prefers" "favors" and or "coordinates" with a particulate candidate, the easy solution is to disclose it.
If your up for arguing merits of "S&Cs" filed by the DNC over the years, I'd be more than happy, I have a few favorites. Let me know I'll start a new thread.
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
Did you read the lawsuit?
I did not read the S&C and the article is unclear as to whether they are suing for damages based on DNC donations or Bernie donations. I was assuming the former as that seems more rational. If the latter then I think the case has even less merit. What about a political party would lead one to believe that it wouldn't have a preferred candidate? Is there a disclosure on a website? Is there something in the public bylaws? I would think there would need to be something to avoid a quick dismissal or judgment for the defendant.
The point of the post wasn't about the merits of the suit, it was about a defense argument. If you want to argue case merit, I suggest you read the complaint first. If you read it you will find the answers to your questions.
The DNC "appeared" and claims to be neutral but "in fact" wasn't based on the information leaked online. If the DNC "prefers" "favors" and or "coordinates" with a particulate candidate, the easy solution is to disclose it.
If your up for arguing merits of "S&Cs" filed by the DNC over the years, I'd be more than happy, I have a few favorites. Let me know I'll start a new thread.
It's a counter argument, challenging the knowledge of the plaintiffs when they made the donation, not an admission of guilt.
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
Did you read the lawsuit?
I did not read the S&C and the article is unclear as to whether they are suing for damages based on DNC donations or Bernie donations. I was assuming the former as that seems more rational. If the latter then I think the case has even less merit. What about a political party would lead one to believe that it wouldn't have a preferred candidate? Is there a disclosure on a website? Is there something in the public bylaws? I would think there would need to be something to avoid a quick dismissal or judgment for the defendant.
The point of the post wasn't about the merits of the suit, it was about a defense argument. If you want to argue case merit, I suggest you read the complaint first. If you read it you will find the answers to your questions.
The DNC "appeared" and claims to be neutral but "in fact" wasn't based on the information leaked online. If the DNC "prefers" "favors" and or "coordinates" with a particulate candidate, the easy solution is to disclose it.
If your up for arguing merits of "S&Cs" filed by the DNC over the years, I'd be more than happy, I have a few favorites. Let me know I'll start a new thread.
It's a counter argument, challenging the knowledge of the plaintiffs when they made the donation, not an admission of guilt.
Guilty of what? Who said it was an admission of guilt?
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
so you think that the guy that most Bernie supporters believe was not the typical politician and would not sell his beliefs to anyone just buckled and did exactly that? or do you think just maybe he does believe that Hillary would be a good president?
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Voting for a third party candidate (I'm voting for Jill Stein, for example) in a non-swing state makes a lot of sense. It allow some to say "I don't agree with either of those two!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
Let the people vote as they wish, is what I say. Everyone deserves to vote who they feel is right, and that goes for all voters and all candidates.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
Let the people vote as they wish, is what I say. Everyone deserves to vote who they feel is right, and that goes for all voters and all candidates.
Oh but Free, in some parts you will get fried for that! The arrogance of following your most honest beliefs! You will get castigated viciously for that!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
Let the people vote as they wish, is what I say. Everyone deserves to vote who they feel is right, and that goes for all voters and all candidates.
Oh but Free, in some parts you will get fried for that! The arrogance of following your most honest beliefs! You will get castigated viciously for that!
Yep! Because being truly free to make up our own minds is wrong according to status quo, establishment corporatist America.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
Let the people vote as they wish, is what I say. Everyone deserves to vote who they feel is right, and that goes for all voters and all candidates.
Hahaha unless they voted for Clinton in the primary...or the general lol then you have plenty to say about that!
Ah, but you're also free to give shit to people here who may see things differently than you.
On a regular basis.
Accompanied by a and followed up with ever-endearing "don't attack me".
*cue Undone*
Can't wait for election day!
And NOWHERE in my post warranted this response.
Pretty sure if you look through your history of posts and how you've treated/spoken down to/laughed at many people in this forum, you might see where this was coming from.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Ah yes, thank you. I thought it was said a 35% lowering during the debate (which of course shocked the hell out of me, lol), but yeah, looks like he wants to lower it from over 39% to 25%. There is no economic plan/theory that I disagree with less than trickle-down. I can't believe that there are people who think the guy is going to 'fight for regular people'. Well any way, this is the Bernie thread.... I miss Bernie.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
If you read it you will find the answers to your questions.
The DNC "appeared" and claims to be neutral but "in fact" wasn't based on the information leaked online.
If the DNC "prefers" "favors" and or "coordinates" with a particulate candidate, the easy solution is to disclose it.
If your up for arguing merits of "S&Cs" filed by the DNC over the years, I'd be more than happy, I have a few favorites. Let me know I'll start a new thread.
Who said it was an admission of guilt?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/vermont-gubernatorial-2016-bernie-sanders-scott-214285#ixzz4LP8XZJQP
He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him.
Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
On a regular basis.
Accompanied by a
*cue Undone*
Can't wait for election day!
And "free to give shit to others" is not following rules.
then you have plenty to say about that!
Green Party nominee escorted off debate premises
If not, not.
Back to Bernie.
Sanders Brought The Real Talk During The First Presidential Debate
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57e9abede4b024a52d29e702
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
Well any way, this is the Bernie thread.... I miss Bernie.