Also, lawsuit against DNC regarding wages.

It sucks that they're immune to hypocrisy because they don't actually believe in what they stand behind.

What do they even stand behind? All people like Pelosi ever talk about are their "values" but they never specify WHAT values!

They're talking about them like a singular entity, but they say "values" plural. Like it's a shield they assembled out of carefully chosen bits of social pressures more than a collection of what they think is right and just.

Pelosi is a dual citizen? Probably mean supremacist values.

They value money and power. In this they are 100% consistent.

pretty much 99% of politians

Internet party, let's pick up where Seth left off!

We get new jobs with the Clinton campaign?

Only if you promise to leak a spirit cooking video

Well we can guess how he would make use of such a job.

"[W]ork on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation"?

Don't you mean Setch?

http://archive.is/vrmm7

Pack it up boys, we got a typo. I guess that proves it was a botched robbery and Kim dotcom has type II diabetes, and Julian Assange had a stroke during an interview!

Kim dot com is full of shit and everyone knows it.

u/LilMissGuided is full of shit and everyone knows it.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment.

Don't hold your breath!

I can breathe under water!

Removed, violation of rule 10.

You lost!! Let it gooooooooo!

I'm down. Been trying to gather support for this. We start a branch of the Internet Party of the United States to carry on Seth's legacy. Anyone else in?

It's to be called the pirate party.

Supporting: Net Neutrality Privacy Break up of tech monopoly Freedom to modify hardware and software Transparency of government

What happens when democracy isn't a democracy ?

I urge you to read Jason Stanley's book titled How Propaganda Works. The title makes it sound like a breezy overview. It's not. He's a philosopher and this book is deep, dead on, and readable (no overuse of philosophical jargon). He answers this question in numerous ways.

Jason Stanley's book titled How Propaganda Works.

Great recommendation. A pertinent quote seeing how we are in a communicative space.

Propaganda poses an equally obvious threat to the epistemic conception of democracy, championed by the philosopher David Estlund and the political scientist Hélène Landemore.13 Epistemic democrats hold that democracy should be given an epistemic justification (perhaps in addition to its autonomyrelated justification), one that rests upon the superiority of collective reasoning for deciding outcomes. On this view, democracy is the best form of government, because collective deliberation followed by majority rule is the most reliable way to make decisions. Propaganda poses an obvious problem for the epistemic conception of democracy, because propaganda bypasses rational deliberation

pg 12.

I don't see how this isn't talked about constantly. Their lawyers are basically saying the DNC doesn't owe anything to anyone, etc... Have you guys checked out what they are saying? I know you probably have...THAT is what people need to be informed about. People are so loyal to these parties, who by their own admission, are loyal to no one.

Democracy Dies in Darkness is saying the lawsuit is "frivolous" - (note: laura ingraham in editor in chief of lifezette) http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wapo-claims-300-million-class-action-suit-against-dnc-frivolous/

The complete media blackout is also very telling. As far as I'm concerned it's an admission of media collusion with the DNC, which is strengthened even further by the Wikileaks documents showing that collusion.

It is a legitimate political scandal that is being openly admitted to, but the media would rather pursue circumstantial evidence about Russia. It stinks of guilt and corruption.

Because it's a junk lawsuit filed just to make conservative headlines. The real conspiracy here is why they are trying so hard to destroy the democratic party, and turn our country into a one-party system. This should alarm everyone, regardless of their political affiliations.

The lawyer who filed this lawsuit posts links to the Daily Caller, for fucks sake. And yet he claims to run a "progressive" SuperPAC, but a lot of what he posts seems to only serve to undermine a progressive agenda.

At best, this guy's motivations appear to be to further his own image, not care for the democratic process.

And they did report on it, just now how many people like it here. It's not a blackout, just because you disagree with the perceived bias. They mentioned it here.

Furthermore, all of this is attached the Seth Rich stuff, and the lawyer pushing these lawsuits tweets things like

I'm a progressive and I oppose this vigorously! Keep going Sean! #SethRich was a Berner and we want #justiceforseth!

In response the Hannity boycott. What progressive in their right mind would not want Hannity to be boycotted? (Assuming they are, you know, actually a progressive.) Suspicious as fuck. Not to mention RT Is propping him up.

Perhaps this guy is your man, but the fact of the matter is he shouldn't be, if he was really progressive.

Junk lawsuit? There is real evidence that the DNC colluded with major media outlets to rig their primary election while telling their constituents it was a democratic process and taking campaign money from them.

Their legal defense is that they are allowed to lie and defraud their own voter base because it's no different than "campaign promises". If I were still deluded enough to buy into democratic socialism I would frothing at the mouth calling for them to hung for treason for subverting democracy.

This is a political scandal and your only reason for discounting it is that the proponents of the lawsuit are suddenly not very friendly with the DNC? Gee, I wonder if there's a common sense reason for that. Nope, must be shilling. There's no way in hell if this came out as being done by the GOP the media would act like it's all partisan BS not to be taken seriously.

And when did I say shit about Hannity? I don't watch Fox News and couldn't care less about him.

I'm not taking anything you say seriously anymore.

to rig their primary election

That's the issue right there. They're saying it's theirs to rig since they're a private organization in control of a major political party. It's hard to see how they're wrong, and yet it's harder to see why more people aren't disgusted by this...

It is fraud. Everybody should be disgusted by this. If you think the Republican party is any different you are sadly mistaken. They did it to Ron Paul and I believe they rigged votes when Paul ran.

Exactly this. This is the whole reason I care about any of this shit. I want to see the GOP burn for what they did in 2012. Unfortunately, the evidence didn't come out for what happened in 2012, but it did when the DNC did it in 2016, so we can start by holding them accountable. Maybe it will prevent either party from doing it in the future, but I doubt it.

This is a political scandal and your only reason for discounting it is that the proponents of the lawsuit are suddenly not very friendly with the DNC?

If you read my reply, you'd see that's not the case.

You should probably take a look at that full lawsuit. It's so dumb, there's no way they will win. Almost, as if that's on purpose. Because they know they couldn't build a real case. E.g If you read the bit in the article I posted:

Among the finer points of the lawsuit is that it seeks damages against the DNC for allowing itself to be hacked.

This is all just political theater.

I also reported you for accusing me of being a shill. If you read the side-bar, you'd know you are breaking the rules right now.

I also reported you for accusing me of being a shill.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension. I wasn't calling you a shill, I was sarcastically commenting on how ridiculous it is that you assume that someone must be shilling for political purposes to sue the DNC over what happened with Bernie.

This is a political scandal and your only reason for discounting it is that the proponents of the lawsuit are suddenly not very friendly with the DNC? Gee, I wonder if there's a common sense reason for that. Nope, must be shilling. There's no way in hell if this came out as being done by the GOP the media would act like it's all partisan BS not to be taken seriously.

You never specified whether "that" was referring to my discounting it, or your dumbed down conception of my understanding of the issue.

I never used the term "shill" before I perceived you calling me one. The fact that you even use the term, probably means your not really worth my time. You made this conversation 100x stupider the second you used the term. You assume that I speak of self-aware operatives that aren't themselves being manipulated, for example. And ignored the alternative theories I provided only to focus on the one version that fit into a label you understood. And maybe you aren't aware of it because you've been trained to think this way, but it is both manipulative of others, and yourself to use labels in this way to divert real discussion.

your dumbed down conception of my understanding of the issue.

Jesus Christ. It's called a rhetorical device. I made a sarcastic comment to make light of how overly simplistic and biased your reasoning was. Doing so necessarily is going to oversimplify your point. I'm well aware that what you're implying doesn't automatically equate to shilling, but it easily can be interpreted as implying it.

You made this conversation 100x stupider the second you used the term.

The way you were labeling and describing the actions and motives of the person pursuing the lawsuit heavily implied it. Don't pretend you're on moral high ground just because you didn't use the actual word.

only to focus on the one version that fit into a label you understood.

Insulting my intelligence. Awesome.

because you've been trained to think this way

More insults. Very productive.

to divert real discussion.

After a self-righteous post insulting my intelligence you claim that I am the one diverting real discussion. I'm done with you and this conversation.

Keep letting those echo-chambers validate you as you stumble through other people's arguments like a bull in a bull shop.

Seems it's working very well.

There is real evidence that the DNC colluded with major media outlets to rig their primary election while telling their constituents it was a democratic process and taking campaign money from them.

Unless you have evidence of vote manipulation, I think you'd have a hard time using that word in court. On top of that, a shitload of the money Clinton raised was to be available to whomever won the Democratic primary. Sanders only raised money for his campaign.

Username checks out...

Seriously. One of the more awful comments I have read on here.

Thank you for having a brain and actually using it. Don't let the t_d downvote brigade get you down.

Thanks, and no worries. I knew that going into posting here.

Who is going to talk about it? The MSM is complicit in this, they will never highlight anything too negative about the DNC.

I don't even bother with people that are party loyalists, and I think in general the 2 groups offset each other. The people I care about are generally independent. This is a growing block of voters who have the ability to change their mind.

If you have ever voted for a democrat and a republican, I don't even care if I disagree with your politics. At least you are trying. We need more people who make decisions based on information, and have the ability to change their mind.

Their lawyers are basically saying the DNC doesn't owe anything to anyone, etc...

That's the initial dismissal motion. Everybody always has those. you find a technicality to dismiss the lawsuit, so you don't have to go to trial, which is massively expensive even when you win.

Realistically, even if the plaintiffs get past this motion, they'll have a massive burden of proof on their hands. Do you separate the actions of individual people from the organization as a whole? What if those people merely discussed things in emails, but didn't implement them? What if they did, and they say that they were merely testing a candidate before the general election, so they could get ahead of anything?

You not only have to prove actions, you have to prove intent. This lawsuit is going nowhere.

People are so loyal to these parties, who by their own admission, are loyal to no one.

To be fair, the DNC did support the more popular candidate. Let's be honest here, there's a reason Clinton won by such a large margin. Before 2015, nobody outside VT knew who Sanders was.

What, you mean murdering a random process server didn't stop the lawsuit?

It's going to be dismissed. I would be shocked if this holds up and actually happens. I'll be happy if I'm wrong though.

DNC Is a kiddy pool of shit.

What happens when democracy isn't a democracy ?

It's called America, where truth is subjective and lies are propagated to the masses.

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

I think what's important to realize here is that the DNC's main line of defense is basically: "Well we're not saying we rigged the primary, but even if we did, we would be allowed to because we're a private organization that can operate however we see fit."

The worst part is that they're right. The DNC doesn't owe anything to anyone besides its financiers. They're not some public group that is required by law to give equal treatment to all candidates who come through the democratic primaries.

Very curious to see where this lawsuit goes.

Who are its financiers? Are individual donors not financiers? If not, what is the difference between them?

Who are its financiers?

Wall Street billionaires, Silicon Valley billionaires, media billionaires, etc.

In what way are they categorically different from Joe Smith, thousandaire?

how does not having a democrat party all of a sudden make this not a democracy? if that's the case, we are already a republic anyway, since the republicans control almost everything.

if by democracy you mean there will only be one party left (repub) then you're still wrong, because there are the greens to think about. fuck democrats

What happens when democracy isn't a democracy ?

Looks around, it's a republic! :P

which is a subset of democracy

details?

The question I keep asking myself is that, if the court denies the motion, to what ends will the DMC go to 'ensure' that the case never makes it to trial. My imagination is running rampant with hypos.

Kim dot com is full of shit and everyone knows it.

It is fraud. Everybody should be disgusted by this. If you think the Republican party is any different you are sadly mistaken. They did it to Ron Paul and I believe they rigged votes when Paul ran.