Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

a reply to: dashen

They truly believe that people are that dumb. More so, that the judges and prosecutors are that stupid or scared of them still. Like a bunch of mini tin hat dictators believing in their own dogma they march on until they go right off the cliff. Let's point the way to their oblivion. Hopefully their lemmings follow in short order.

a reply to: moyeti

I do think this election was a bit of a wake up call for the Deep State. They learned they didn't have near as much control as they thought they had. That's what made me happy, even if done at the expense of having Trump in the office. Even still though, they did seem to figure it out just before the election, and seemed to exert their influence in at least some ways, once the GOP publicly shifted support.

He [Ron Paul] was the first tilt of the scale. He SHOULD have won.

I voted for him back then. I think Ross Perot though, was an earlier tilt of the scale. Don't forget about him!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xcathdra

Par for the course with the most undemocratic party in the United States.

On May 31, 2008, Barack Obama sent lawyers into the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee hearing to argue that the party SHOULD NOT COUNT ANY VOTES IN THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA PRIMARY.

He wanted ALL those voters disenfranchised.

That's the *stuff* that Barack Obama is made of.

And most of those Democratic voters have since stuck around for more abuse from a party that hates and uses them.

source?.....or fake news

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The next DNC primary will be interesting.

Why do candidates bother spending advertising money to get "votes"? Why bother traveling the country holding rallies?

The DNC clearly stated it's fine with just picking whoever the hell they want.

Why even bother with their primaries at all?

Dog and pony show.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

Even the media are on board with being hush hush on this part. That is very strange. Well, unless The R party is a fake uniparty as some of us suspect.

Ron was hosed in several states like Bernie and the media was quiet. This time Trump was not the R leadership's choice, nor was Cruz or Rubio, it was Bush. The problem for them is way too many people said "Hell NO!!" never Bush again. Then the D candidate got zapped as just another event that too were many having a real HN moment in the voting booth...

I really think the other two would have gotten the same treatment by the media, tailored for their perceived/and likely falsified sins to prevent the ruling Oligarch from losing a power struggle with the people.

I kinda thought Bush was the choice too, but man was he uncharismatic. People disliked him almost as much as Clinton. I think Cruz and Rubio were firm establishment choices too. Trump was the wild card.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of this conduct by BOTH political parties if a law was passed to require the distribution of leaflets to primary voters stating in large font "YOUR VOTE IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY" so that everyone in this nation is clear that these two organizations represent no one but themselves.

At this point a primary vote is about as effective as the cute little slot machine game I have on my ipad. Yeah I spun 3 Red 7s and that made me happy but I don't actually win anything real.

The problem is, I see it on the faces of the people who attend these caucuses and straw polls etc. They really, in their hearts, believe they're making a difference for the future of our country. They are not. Their vote is meaningless because if the party organizations don't like the result they have ample mechanisms at their disposal to override that result. We've seen it happen as my fellow members have pointed out with Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders.

The passionate people who care about our country have been fooled. They stand out there with signs and t shirts. They hand out cards. They engage neighbors. And they do all of it in vain. Two groups of very wealthy and powerful people make the decisions. Not Iowa or New Hampshire in all their glory early in the election. Not the Super Tuesday states. Two groups of rich people. That's all.

The problem is no one wants to believe it. If the law required these two criminal enterprises to be up front with the public about how this really works... well, maybe the passion of the people would be directed at correcting this. Maybe that would be what we need to lance these two embarrassing boils off our nation's backside. And hopefully throw the whole lot of them, from both sides, into prison for stealing our precious right of electing our own leaders.

originally posted by: Djarums
I wouldn't have a problem with any of this conduct by BOTH political parties if a law was passed to require the distribution of leaflets to primary voters stating in large font "YOUR VOTE IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY" so that everyone in this nation is clear that these two organizations represent no one but themselves.

At this point a primary vote is about as effective as the cute little slot machine game I have on my ipad. Yeah I spun 3 Red 7s and that made me happy but I don't actually win anything real.

The problem is, I see it on the faces of the people who attend these caucuses and straw polls etc. They really, in their hearts, believe they're making a difference for the future of our country. They are not. Their vote is meaningless because if the party organizations don't like the result they have ample mechanisms at their disposal to override that result. We've seen it happen as my fellow members have pointed out with Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders.

The passionate people who care about our country have been fooled. They stand out there with signs and t shirts. They hand out cards. They engage neighbors. And they do all of it in vain. Two groups of very wealthy and powerful people make the decisions. Not Iowa or New Hampshire in all their glory early in the election. Not the Super Tuesday states. Two groups of rich people. That's all.

The problem is no one wants to believe it. If the law required these two criminal enterprises to be up front with the public about how this really works... well, maybe the passion of the people would be directed at correcting this. Maybe that would be what we need to lance these two embarrassing boils off our nation's backside. And hopefully throw the whole lot of them, from both sides, into prison for stealing our precious right of electing our own leaders.

That's the big problem. Most democrats think that their votes count in the primary, not understanding that the DNC controls every primary with superdelegates if things appear to get out of hand.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

Would I? A simple YouTube search reveals multiple interviews with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Sorry man, you don't have to like Fox but they do give a voice to libertarian candidates and commentators.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

Would I? A simple YouTube search reveals multiple interviews with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Sorry man, you don't have to like Fox but they do give a voice to libertarian candidates and commentators.

Very few. I could also search MSNBC and CNN and look for stuff on Bernie Sanders, during the primary or Jill Stein and although I would find a few, it would be skewed.

Again, most MSNBC and Fox news viewers didn't know that there were viable third party candidates and when they did they were marginalized.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

Would I? A simple YouTube search reveals multiple interviews with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Sorry man, you don't have to like Fox but they do give a voice to libertarian candidates and commentators.

Very few. I could also search MSNBC and CNN and look for stuff on Bernie Sanders, during the primary or Jill Stein and although I would find a few, it would be skewed.

Again, most MSNBC and Fox news viewers didn't know that there were viable third party candidates and when they did they were marginalized.

I have all kinds of problems with the media, no matter which way they lean. I just don't see how they're responsible for viewers not paying attention. They do cover third party candidates.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

Would I? A simple YouTube search reveals multiple interviews with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Sorry man, you don't have to like Fox but they do give a voice to libertarian candidates and commentators.

Very few. I could also search MSNBC and CNN and look for stuff on Bernie Sanders, during the primary or Jill Stein and although I would find a few, it would be skewed.

Again, most MSNBC and Fox news viewers didn't know that there were viable third party candidates and when they did they were marginalized.

I have all kinds of problems with the media, no matter which way they lean. I just don't see how they're responsible for viewers not paying attention. They do cover third party candidates.

Not that much and when they do it's skewed. Hardly anyone I know, knew there was a viable constitution party candidate running.

It's different for us here on ATS, we dig deeper We make it our business to know. Most voters are not as informed as us.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing
This means that since Rachel Maddow isn't talking about the rigged primary, they don't believe it happened. Most democrats don't even know about this lawsuit. And since Fox news isn't talking about libertarians most conservatives don't even realize that's an option or Constitution party.

There's actually several libertarian commentators at Fox. One has her own show on Fox Business and regularly co-hosts on the main Fox News Channel. It's mostly conservative-leaning but libertarians get more attention there than you think.

And at least one liberal has his own show on Fox News Channel too. Two, depending on whose standards you're using.

But you'll still be hard pressed to find an interview/story or stats on libertarian candidates or constitution party candidates on Fox News.

Would I? A simple YouTube search reveals multiple interviews with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Sorry man, you don't have to like Fox but they do give a voice to libertarian candidates and commentators.

Very few. I could also search MSNBC and CNN and look for stuff on Bernie Sanders, during the primary or Jill Stein and although I would find a few, it would be skewed.

Again, most MSNBC and Fox news viewers didn't know that there were viable third party candidates and when they did they were marginalized.

I have all kinds of problems with the media, no matter which way they lean. I just don't see how they're responsible for viewers not paying attention. They do cover third party candidates.

Not that much and when they do it's skewed. Hardly anyone I know, knew there was a viable constitution party candidate running.

It's different for us here on ATS, we dig deeper We make it our business to know. Most voters are not as informed as us.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the existence of 3rd part candidates is a down in the weeds issue. It's covered. If they cover something, and people ignore it, I just can't get to blaming the media for that. And I'm not fan of the media.

then that action was protected under the first amendment.

Then the DNC commits fraud by taking donations for any candidate other than HillBilly. With holding information that retains a person in an unfavorable position (less money for donating) to benefit another's position is the common law definition for fraud. Fraud destroys any legal defense.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Abedin and Podesta and Schultz and clinton.... what did we ever do to deserve that rabble

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The next DNC primary will be interesting.

Why do candidates bother spending advertising money to get "votes"? Why bother traveling the country holding rallies?

The DNC clearly stated it's fine with just picking whoever the hell they want.

Why even bother with their primaries at all?

Dog and pony show.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

Even the media are on board with being hush hush on this part. That is very strange. Well, unless The R party is a fake uniparty as some of us suspect.

Ron was hosed in several states like Bernie and the media was quiet. This time Trump was not the R leadership's choice, nor was Cruz or Rubio, it was Bush. The problem for them is way too many people said "Hell NO!!" never Bush again. Then the D candidate got zapped as just another event that too were many having a real HN moment in the voting booth...

I really think the other two would have gotten the same treatment by the media, tailored for their perceived/and likely falsified sins to prevent the ruling Oligarch from losing a power struggle with the people.

I kinda thought Bush was the choice too, but man was he uncharismatic. People disliked him almost as much as Clinton. I think Cruz and Rubio were firm establishment choices too. Trump was the wild card.

This is it, exactly, and the establishment (both D & R) absolutely refuse to see it:

The people they are trying to foist on us, people like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, are the worst choices out there. Many, many Americans can see this. That is why Trump won, and why Bernie should have won the Democratic nomination.

They don't like it? Stop chasing Russian boogeymen, and give us people we want to vote for.

a reply to: amazing


I remember an interview with Bush shortly after he was no longer governor where he was asked about running for higher office, he was quite emphatic at the time that he had no interest in running.

I will wager my last dollar that his tossing his hat in the ring was all daddy and not him, the guy can be charismatic but if your heart isn't in it its hard to fake it, unless your like a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin and charisma falls off you like a pheromone.

a reply to: Gazrok

Voted for Perot too. Afterwards I was talking to a friend and he told me that you should never vote for who you believe in, but who will likely have a chance. The conundrum of the age.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The next DNC primary will be interesting.

Why do candidates bother spending advertising money to get "votes"? Why bother traveling the country holding rallies?

The DNC clearly stated it's fine with just picking whoever the hell they want.

Why even bother with their primaries at all?

Dog and pony show.

Why's everyone keep acting like the GOP doesn't do the same precisely exact snip?

What planet does everyone live on?

Even the media are on board with being hush hush on this part. That is very strange. Well, unless The R party is a fake uniparty as some of us suspect.

Ron was hosed in several states like Bernie and the media was quiet. This time Trump was not the R leadership's choice, nor was Cruz or Rubio, it was Bush. The problem for them is way too many people said "Hell NO!!" never Bush again. Then the D candidate got zapped as just another event that too were many having a real HN moment in the voting booth...

I really think the other two would have gotten the same treatment by the media, tailored for their perceived/and likely falsified sins to prevent the ruling Oligarch from losing a power struggle with the people.

I kinda thought Bush was the choice too, but man was he uncharismatic. People disliked him almost as much as Clinton. I think Cruz and Rubio were firm establishment choices too. Trump was the wild card.

This is it, exactly, and the establishment (both D & R) absolutely refuse to see it:

The people they are trying to foist on us, people like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, are the worst choices out there. Many, many Americans can see this. That is why Trump won, and why Bernie should have won the Democratic nomination.

They don't like it? Stop chasing Russian boogeymen, and give us people we want to vote for.

Like them or hate them the last few presidents were Charismatic..meaning people could identify with them, wanted to like them. People actually liked Obama, Bush, Clinton Reagan, Carter, Ford. Trump? Conservatives loved him. Clinton...luke warm...Many democrats only voted for her because she was "better' than Trump. That's not Charisma.

I think Bush Sr was the Anomaly...He rode the coat tails of Reagan. Gore almost won off the coat tails of Clinton.

They don't like it? Stop chasing Russian boogeymen, and give us people we want to vote for.

Should be interesting to see what tripe they throw out in 2020.