3 ms·

Just throwing the term "conspiracy theorist" around doesn't lend your comment any weight or value. The article is mostly a summary of a DNC lawyer's own argumen

Just throwing the term "conspiracy theorist" around doesn't lend your comment any weight or value. The article is mostly a summary of a DNC lawyer's own arguments that the DNC is not obligated to conduct a fair or transparent primary election to select the Democratic nominee. It's their perspective, not a "conspiracy theory."

lern_too_spel 7y ago
I didn't just throw the term conspiracy theory around. Pretending that the DNC's lawyers explaining the fact that the DNC can just choose its candidate in backroom dealings is equivalent to admitting that the DNC actually did choose its candidate in that manner and then manipulated election counts as the article and its commenters claim is full-blown conspiracy theory. Likewise, insinuating that the DNC rigged the Iowa caucus in some way merely because it drew up the contract for the voting app is also conspiracy theory. You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for rigging or the ability to change the app, only the ability to test the app and access its logs.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  > You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for rigging or the ability to change the app Hahaha. Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the "conspiracy theory" variety, and more, "wow Tom Perez and the DNC leadership are totally incompetent and need to be fired yesterday." Whether we reach that point through the "conspiracy theory" door or the "incompetence" door, it's obvious they need to go.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Hahaha. What part did you find funny? I wasn't joking. The article includes the contract. > Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the "conspiracy theory" variety That is most of the reaction I have seen in this very thread.
- ChristianSatan 7y ago
  You need to watch the Jimmy Dore interview of ACTUAL DELEGATES exposing how ridiculous and rigged the process really is behind the scenes. It's not a "Conspiracy Theory" it's just the way the DNC(/RNC) works and always has. I'm frankly surprised you're so shocked by this. It's nothing new, read a book about Tammany Hall as a well-worn reference. NEWS FLASH: POLITICIANS ARE DIRTY. Don't be niave.
- ChristianSatan 7y ago
  How can you be clutching your pearls at this? NEWS FLASH: POLITICIANS ARE DIRTY
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The article is mostly a summary of a DNC lawyer's own arguments that the DNC is not obligated to conduct a fair or transparent primary election to select the Democratic nominee. Since the pretense of meaningful primary elections was a PR move made after some adverse PR with the old overt-backroom-arrangement system in the 1968 primary, the argument is hardly surprising. But the argument that they aren't obligated to do something isn't an acknowledgement that they did it, it's how you get a case dismissed at the earliest (and cheapest!) possible time: make the strongest possible argument that even if everything you are accused of is true, there would be no legal cause of action. The conspiracy theory is making the leap from “they argued they are not obligated to do X” to “this must mean they did the opposite of X”.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

I didn't just throw the term conspiracy theory around. Pretending that the DNC's lawyers explaining the fact that the DNC can just choose its candidate in backroom dealings is equivalent to admitting that the DNC actually did choose its candidate in that manner and then manipulated election counts as the article and its commenters claim is full-blown conspiracy theory. Likewise, insinuating that the DNC rigged the Iowa caucus in some way merely because it drew up the contract for the voting app is also conspiracy theory. You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for rigging or the ability to change the app, only the ability to test the app and access its logs.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
> You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for rigging or the ability to change the app Hahaha. Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the "conspiracy theory" variety, and more, "wow Tom Perez and the DNC leadership are totally incompetent and need to be fired yesterday." Whether we reach that point through the "conspiracy theory" door or the "incompetence" door, it's obvious they need to go.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Hahaha. What part did you find funny? I wasn't joking. The article includes the contract. > Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the "conspiracy theory" variety That is most of the reaction I have seen in this very thread.
ChristianSatan 7y ago
You need to watch the Jimmy Dore interview of ACTUAL DELEGATES exposing how ridiculous and rigged the process really is behind the scenes. It's not a "Conspiracy Theory" it's just the way the DNC(/RNC) works and always has. I'm frankly surprised you're so shocked by this. It's nothing new, read a book about Tammany Hall as a well-worn reference. NEWS FLASH: POLITICIANS ARE DIRTY. Don't be niave.
ChristianSatan 7y ago
How can you be clutching your pearls at this? NEWS FLASH: POLITICIANS ARE DIRTY

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The article is mostly a summary of a DNC lawyer's own arguments that the DNC is not obligated to conduct a fair or transparent primary election to select the Democratic nominee. Since the pretense of meaningful primary elections was a PR move made after some adverse PR with the old overt-backroom-arrangement system in the 1968 primary, the argument is hardly surprising. But the argument that they aren't obligated to do something isn't an acknowledgement that they did it, it's how you get a case dismissed at the earliest (and cheapest!) possible time: make the strongest possible argument that even if everything you are accused of is true, there would be no legal cause of action. The conspiracy theory is making the leap from “they argued they are not obligated to do X” to “this must mean they did the opposite of X”.