3 ms·

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
  The gp article lays out two things clearly: 1. It is standard practice at dismissal phase to proceed is if the plaintiff’s claims were correct. 2. The case was dismissed because political rhetoric is not enforceable in court.