4 ms·

Reminds me of the DNC arguing they had the right to rig the primaries against Sanders. - https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-sch

Reminds me of the DNC arguing they had the right to rig the primaries against Sanders. - https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-was...

ceejayoz 5y ago
The DNC's a private organization. They could pick their candidate by having a gorilla pick from a hat, if they so choose.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  The gorilla would be much, much better than what they did - presenting the primary as some kind of fair process, with real rules, that anyone could have a chance in if they were a Democrat. We don't have to get started on the effect putting two private organizations in charge of all high-level narrative since the 70s has done, but I fail to see how any of that excuses deceptively rigging a primary.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The primary process is how the privately-run political parties select their candidate. Their clear goal is the benefit of the party, not an exercise in democracy. The same year saw the GOP hold a similar dislike for a particular candidate, with different results. Trump won, but the RNC certainly tried their best to prevent it for a while. No party primary in history is likely to have been entirely fair or impartial.
  - jdmichal 5y ago
    The parties want to have a primary, because it's better than running multiple candidates. And color me surprised that a political organization running a political election involves politics! :rolleyes: EDIT: I want to clarify my response here. There's a trend within technology to discount anything that's based on social rather than some sort of more directly measurable outcome. In this case, the implication that there should be "rules" that are clear and followed to the letter, and absolutely nothing should happen outside of them. Guess what! We live in a society, and anything involving more than one person also involves "politics". Social currency is as important, and one should pay attention to it. Otherwise one will consistently find that, no matter how good their technical justifications, they just get steamrolled by people who are both technically-correct enough AND socially juiced.
duxup 5y ago
Very generally a party can run its primaries how it wishes. Selling pop tarts to everyone claiming something is in it that provides health benefits when it is hardly there is a different thing.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Sorry, are you trying to say the DNC weren't deceptive? Seriously?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That basically misses the point. The DNC is allowed to be deceptive, if they want. There's no legal basis for "the primaries have to be fair". The party is permitted to express a preference; they get to choose a platform, rules for the convention, how many debates to have, etc. They can favor a specific candidate, they can expel you from the party, they can do all sorts of things to move the scale.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      That's kinda like saying Kellogg's can choose to be deceptive. There's no legal basis for "strawberry Pop-Tarts need more than 2% strawberry". The company is permitted to use cancerous dyes and cheap ingredients, market the shit as wholegrain or whatever, etc. The more I think about this, the more uncanny how similar our politics is to Pop-Tarts. They've no value or benefit to anyone but shareholders; they're marketed as responsible and balanced despite literally causing cancer; there's a few different flavours but the flavour is a meaningless deception dyed either red or blue.
      - duxup 5y ago
        >That's kinda like saying Kellogg's can choose to be deceptive. A party running their own primaries is not at all like selling pop tarts.
  - nkingsy 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 5y ago

The DNC's a private organization. They could pick their candidate by having a gorilla pick from a hat, if they so choose.

mandmandam 5y ago
The gorilla would be much, much better than what they did - presenting the primary as some kind of fair process, with real rules, that anyone could have a chance in if they were a Democrat. We don't have to get started on the effect putting two private organizations in charge of all high-level narrative since the 70s has done, but I fail to see how any of that excuses deceptively rigging a primary.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The primary process is how the privately-run political parties select their candidate. Their clear goal is the benefit of the party, not an exercise in democracy. The same year saw the GOP hold a similar dislike for a particular candidate, with different results. Trump won, but the RNC certainly tried their best to prevent it for a while. No party primary in history is likely to have been entirely fair or impartial.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  The parties want to have a primary, because it's better than running multiple candidates. And color me surprised that a political organization running a political election involves politics! :rolleyes: EDIT: I want to clarify my response here. There's a trend within technology to discount anything that's based on social rather than some sort of more directly measurable outcome. In this case, the implication that there should be "rules" that are clear and followed to the letter, and absolutely nothing should happen outside of them. Guess what! We live in a society, and anything involving more than one person also involves "politics". Social currency is as important, and one should pay attention to it. Otherwise one will consistently find that, no matter how good their technical justifications, they just get steamrolled by people who are both technically-correct enough AND socially juiced.

duxup 5y ago

Very generally a party can run its primaries how it wishes. Selling pop tarts to everyone claiming something is in it that provides health benefits when it is hardly there is a different thing.

mandmandam 5y ago
Sorry, are you trying to say the DNC weren't deceptive? Seriously?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That basically misses the point. The DNC is allowed to be deceptive, if they want. There's no legal basis for "the primaries have to be fair". The party is permitted to express a preference; they get to choose a platform, rules for the convention, how many debates to have, etc. They can favor a specific candidate, they can expel you from the party, they can do all sorts of things to move the scale.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    That's kinda like saying Kellogg's can choose to be deceptive. There's no legal basis for "strawberry Pop-Tarts need more than 2% strawberry". The company is permitted to use cancerous dyes and cheap ingredients, market the shit as wholegrain or whatever, etc. The more I think about this, the more uncanny how similar our politics is to Pop-Tarts. They've no value or benefit to anyone but shareholders; they're marketed as responsible and balanced despite literally causing cancer; there's a few different flavours but the flavour is a meaningless deception dyed either red or blue.
    - duxup 5y ago
      >That's kinda like saying Kellogg's can choose to be deceptive. A party running their own primaries is not at all like selling pop tarts.
- nkingsy 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]