News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Not a fair interpretation of an argument made by a single DNC lawyer in a single context. Also, the primary is over and Mamdani won.
A completely accurate representation, made by a lawyer representing the party and setting precedent they have taken advantage of ever since.
I'm not sorry that the party's machinations against the left fail sometimes.
It's accurate that their lawyer made that true argument. That's just how party primaries work in the US, unfortunately. It's not accurate that "the party went to court for the right to rig". The whole point of the argument was to avoid a potentially long and expensive case from moving forward. The context matters, and the lawyer would have been incompetent not to bring it up, as would a Republican or even Green party lawyer in that situation.
That's an overly charitable interpretation.
What actually happened was that progressives sued the DNC for unfairly rigging the primaries, which they did.
Rather than try to deny it, they went with the tactic of saying "well we're allowed to because we own the process, not the voters".
This in spite of their own charter mandating that they stay neutral and not favor any candidate over others during the primary process.
I don't think the word "rigging" tells an accurate story. I do think they pulled strings to get all the establishment candidates to Voltron into Biden for super Tuesday. I do think they influenced their cohorts in the media to make Bernie look like he couldn't win the general. I don't believe they messed with the voting process itself, which is what "rigging" tends to invoke.
Again, context matters. In a legal process there are different times to make different arguments, and a good lawyer makes use every argument available. This particular argument dealt with whether or not the court had jurisdiction in the matter, so it came early in the process.
What exactly does that mean? Is every member required to be personally neutral in even their personal relationships outside the DNC? Does that extend to Obama who is neither a board member or on staff at the DNC? Being neutral is a good idea, but that rule is pretty meaningless.
To be clear, I am no apologist for the Democratic establishment. I blame them more for Trump than the Republicans. That's why I want progressives to show up and vote them out in primaries. Giving the false impression that their vote won't count is counterproductive.
That very much qualifies as rigging.
How do you know? They control every part of it and have shown that they're not above board in general 🤷
That's not how it works, no. A good lawyer chooses a coherent strategy that's both likely to be successful and in accordance with the wishes of the client.
The DNC itself has a lot of skilled lawyers and would have agreed on a strategy long before a word was said in court. This was their choice, not that of a neutral lawyer just doing his darndest.
Agreed
Only when it comes to unprincipled hypocrites who don't care about the spirit of the rules but only how they can bend and break them to further their own agenda.
Only to the extent that those relationships affect the primaries. Which they very much do when you're doing everything you can to favor a specific candidate.
He's still a member of the party, one of if not THE most influential and thus powerful one at that, with more weight behind his words than most. That great power comes with great responsibility
Could have fooled me, what with all that apologia 🙄
On that we agree, at least.
That would be great, if the DNC would ever allow it.
Fixed that for you.
To be clear, that's the only thing you have ever been or ever will be.
Pointing out that the party does everything it can to ratfuck progressives means that they might respond to pressure to stop, and you don't want that.
Oh, fuck off. I've been brutal towards the establishment. I just want them beaten, and pretending elections are rigged is counterproductive to that end. You're nothing but a right wing agitator.
Why would they? It's apparently working. Now who is suddenly feeling charitable towards the establishment? You think they can be shamed into playing nice? You are so full of shit.
Yes, you brutally defend them every chance you get no matter what they do.
Yeah, they'll only change by unconditional enthusiastic support every time they betray anyone to your left.
God damn, you're hyperfixating on one part of my initial comment because you don't like people remembering how awful your wing of the party constantly is to anyone but netanyahu and two cheneys.
You have no fucking idea what wing of the party I belong to.
I know you scream "republican" at anyone who says the party should listen to the left for the first fucking time.