LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+42 42 0
Published 4 months ago with 9 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 9 comments by 5 users
  • leweb

    Does this really need to be argued at this point?

    • Gozzin

      Nope,but people love to beat dead horses.

    • kxh (edited 4 months ago)

      To get them to admit that:

      the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.

      The DNC charter was revised after Chicago 1968

      the Democratic nomination process was radically revised after the 1968 fiasco at the Chicago Convention in order to win back the droves of disgusted voters who’d abandoned the party, and a major component of that revision was giving the people a voice in the nominating process by instituting primaries and caucuses. Had they not done this, had they not promised the American people a fair and balanced democratic primary process, the Democrats risked losing party viability and being replaced by another party that was more appealing for voters to engage with. By admitting that they have been lying about taking this promise seriously, the DNC is admitting that its party probably should have perished sometime in the 1970s. They deceived the American people into letting them remain.

      • NinjaKlaus

        You could definitely argue that the introduction and use of "Super Delegates" was a major blow to the idea of allowing the people the chance to choose. I won't argue against superdelegates but I will argue against their being able to choose a side and alter the voting I mean Bernie was doing well in some states but still had no momentum because of Super Delegates...

        • Gozzin

          "Super Delegates" was a major blow to the idea of allowing the people the chance to choose.

          And if you think anything will change in the foreseeable future, have I got a bridge for you

          and ocean front property in Arizona too!

          • NinjaKlaus

            I can't wait to put the bridge over my new ocean into Colorado!!! So Great!

    • AdelleChattre

      It's before the court.

      A court finding that the Democratic Party apparatus had chosen Clinton as the nominee in a smoke-filled back room, staged an apparently impartial primary process all the while actively working against the Sanders campaign, violating its own rules, defrauding contributors, rigging elections from the outset while and laundering vast sums of money for Clinton theough the state parties could be useful.

      For one thing, maybe millions of people could get the contributions back they were cheated out of. For another, the court can do more than make findings. Class action suits like this can, and do, change things

      Yes, this needs ro be argued in court.

Here are some other snaps you may like...