|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The Hastert "rule" makes my blood boil to this day. Why a rule created by the child molesting piece of shit is still being used by the House of Representatives is beyond me. The "rule" is just anti-democratic and assures gridlock and I don't understand why it isn't discussed more.
|
On October 19 2016 08:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 06:25 ChristianS wrote:On October 19 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 03:50 TheYango wrote:
I think it's plausible that the Clintons are corrupt, but given the connections that both no doubt already have in place from their terms as president/SoS, their high-profile charity that's consistently subject to scrutiny seems like just about the dumbest possible vehicle for said corruption available to them. If they wanted to do some questionable things why the hell would they do it through the Clinton Foundation? There's an investigation now, and multiple records of ethics violations and improprieties that are made public long after the fact. Otherwise, what scrutiny? They ran it for years with aggressive fundraising from foreign governments without backlash for clear conflicts of interest. Well, that and Hillary's inept handling of coverups and corruption seen in the email scandal. Hubris may still be the death of her. I'm confused, I thought your position on the e-mails was that Hillary was just criminally negligent (i.e. unintentionally put government secrets at risk). If she lied afterward to avoid charges I can see where you get "coverup," but if it's unintentional then how is it corrupt? Operated in gross disregard about the consequences of her actions, no matter who it hurt. Unintentional only with respect to wanting national security harmed/Russia or China or someone benefitted. She'll still tell seven fase stories and delete thousands of subpoena'd emails while telling everyone she's released everything and is cooperating fully just because it looks bad for her. You might not have wanted to kill this man, but you were reckless enough to see that possibility, and tried to hide the body afterwards (and in this case poorly. America deserves better corruption imo).
So to clarify, is the use of a private e-mail account criminal negligence? Or does it become criminal negligence when you put it on a private server? Or was it not illegal until the coverup made it criminally negligent? Depending on which, you could be painting a pretty broad swathe of State Department employees as felons
|
Scott Adams genuinely sounds like he's mentally ill, what is that bizarre rant about twitter on his page
|
On October 19 2016 06:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 06:11 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 05:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 19 2016 04:57 Nevuk wrote:
Suddenly all support gone from Republican senators. You think that's where the support he needs lies? The establishment he actively campaigned against? There are no more votes to get from the anti establishment right wing crowd. So yeah, he needs the support of the establishment, the sane, the middle to win. He also needs their support if he were to somehow win the election. They've proven their pretty good at stopping the president from doing anything at all. He absolutely needs their support but he's too dumb to know it.
Actually I'm pretty sure he does know it. His actions (pandering to his base) are logical if he's no longer trying to win the election (let's face it - he can't). Post-election, when the loser is traditionally writing a book, he'll be airing Trump TV and feeding his supporters a steady IV line of hate and fear. They will keep his brand afloat and make him more money, thus (in his mind) making him a "winner" after the election.
|
On October 19 2016 09:51 Fprime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 06:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 19 2016 06:11 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 05:21 JinDesu wrote:Suddenly all support gone from Republican senators. You think that's where the support he needs lies? The establishment he actively campaigned against? There are no more votes to get from the anti establishment right wing crowd. So yeah, he needs the support of the establishment, the sane, the middle to win. He also needs their support if he were to somehow win the election. They've proven their pretty good at stopping the president from doing anything at all. He absolutely needs their support but he's too dumb to know it. Actually I'm pretty sure he does know it. His actions (pandering to his base) are logical if he's no longer trying to win the election (let's face it - he can't). Post-election, when the loser is traditionally writing a book, he'll be airing Trump TV and feeding his supporters a steady IV line of hate and fear. They will keep his brand afloat and make him more money, thus (in his mind) making him a "winner" after the election.
It may also be a strategy to keep himself from being arrested immediately after the election for any of his crimes (financial or sexual, specifically that airplane groping and one of the other ones are within the statue of limitations) - if he claims the election is rigged and then winds up being arrested after the election it would outrageously flame his supporters.
|
I doubt Trump will be arrested or anything like that. Buried in a series of civil lawsuits, that is another story. The FEC opening up an investigation into how he spent all that money, no doubt.
|
On October 19 2016 09:48 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 08:56 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 06:25 ChristianS wrote:On October 19 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 03:50 TheYango wrote:
I think it's plausible that the Clintons are corrupt, but given the connections that both no doubt already have in place from their terms as president/SoS, their high-profile charity that's consistently subject to scrutiny seems like just about the dumbest possible vehicle for said corruption available to them. If they wanted to do some questionable things why the hell would they do it through the Clinton Foundation? There's an investigation now, and multiple records of ethics violations and improprieties that are made public long after the fact. Otherwise, what scrutiny? They ran it for years with aggressive fundraising from foreign governments without backlash for clear conflicts of interest. Well, that and Hillary's inept handling of coverups and corruption seen in the email scandal. Hubris may still be the death of her. I'm confused, I thought your position on the e-mails was that Hillary was just criminally negligent (i.e. unintentionally put government secrets at risk). If she lied afterward to avoid charges I can see where you get "coverup," but if it's unintentional then how is it corrupt? Operated in gross disregard about the consequences of her actions, no matter who it hurt. Unintentional only with respect to wanting national security harmed/Russia or China or someone benefitted. She'll still tell seven fase stories and delete thousands of subpoena'd emails while telling everyone she's released everything and is cooperating fully just because it looks bad for her. You might not have wanted to kill this man, but you were reckless enough to see that possibility, and tried to hide the body afterwards (and in this case poorly. America deserves better corruption imo). So to clarify, is the use of a private e-mail account criminal negligence? Or does it become criminal negligence when you put it on a private server? Or was it not illegal until the coverup made it criminally negligent? Depending on which, you could be painting a pretty broad swathe of State Department employees as felons
Storing classified information on it and moving it there from secure state department servers certainly is. But you have better reading comprehension than to go on this line, and you know it. Here's a question: When Hillary was interviewed by the FBI, what reason/reasons did she give for not following her training and did you believe her?
|
This was interesting, but I don't have the legal background to know if it's based in reality or not :
The DNC just reached a new low with its latest defensive filing in the class action lawsuit brought by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters.
To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
In describing some of the “inadequacies” in the complaint against it, the DNC called the court’s attention to the following example:
“For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “members of the [Donor Classes] have incurred an injury-in-fact because they … [made] donations, based on the belief that the Democratic presidential nominating process was fair and unbiased,” a belief they say was “propagated and confirmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions…”
According to the DNC’s argument, the assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair can not amount to an appropriate basis for a lawsuit because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” Why did they make that argument? It was a clever legal maneuver. In general, neither donors nor constituents have standing to sue over broken political promises based on a variety of long-held legal principles, not the least of which is that as an appropriate remedy “voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises…” Only the 2016 election could make assumptions of basic fairness seem dirty and suspect.
Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/
|
On October 19 2016 09:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Scott Adams genuinely sounds like he's mentally ill, what is that bizarre rant about twitter on his page
Why all the attention given to him this campaign? He's less coherent than Nettles
|
On October 19 2016 09:59 Nevuk wrote:This was interesting, but I don't have the legal background to know if it's based in reality or not : Show nested quote +The DNC just reached a new low with its latest defensive filing in the class action lawsuit brought by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters.
To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
In describing some of the “inadequacies” in the complaint against it, the DNC called the court’s attention to the following example:
“For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “members of the [Donor Classes] have incurred an injury-in-fact because they … [made] donations, based on the belief that the Democratic presidential nominating process was fair and unbiased,” a belief they say was “propagated and confirmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions…”
According to the DNC’s argument, the assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair can not amount to an appropriate basis for a lawsuit because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” Why did they make that argument? It was a clever legal maneuver. In general, neither donors nor constituents have standing to sue over broken political promises based on a variety of long-held legal principles, not the least of which is that as an appropriate remedy “voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises…” Only the 2016 election could make assumptions of basic fairness seem dirty and suspect.
Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are standard fair and that case is fucking terrible. Whining about a brief supporting the motion is sort of like whining about the sun rising.
The article is bad and tries to make is seem like there is something hidden in the brief. But that case is shit and they didn't even serve the parties correctly because they hired some bush league process server who watched Pineapple Express to many times.
|
On October 19 2016 09:59 Nevuk wrote:This was interesting, but I don't have the legal background to know if it's based in reality or not : Show nested quote +The DNC just reached a new low with its latest defensive filing in the class action lawsuit brought by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters.
To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
In describing some of the “inadequacies” in the complaint against it, the DNC called the court’s attention to the following example:
“For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “members of the [Donor Classes] have incurred an injury-in-fact because they … [made] donations, based on the belief that the Democratic presidential nominating process was fair and unbiased,” a belief they say was “propagated and confirmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions…”
According to the DNC’s argument, the assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair can not amount to an appropriate basis for a lawsuit because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” Why did they make that argument? It was a clever legal maneuver. In general, neither donors nor constituents have standing to sue over broken political promises based on a variety of long-held legal principles, not the least of which is that as an appropriate remedy “voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises…” Only the 2016 election could make assumptions of basic fairness seem dirty and suspect.
Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/
The initial complaint in this case was incredibly sloppy and the DNC lawyers are merely opening up with a very standard laundry list of arguments on behalf of dismissal. Lawyers who don't play kitchen sink with their answer to a complaint that's already spurious on its face are not doing their best advocacy imo.
|
On October 19 2016 09:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 09:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Scott Adams genuinely sounds like he's mentally ill, what is that bizarre rant about twitter on his page Why all the attention given to him this campaign? He's less coherent than Nettles
He's a moderately talented writer (which is far more than can be said for any of Trump's other supporters) and he did in fact call Trump's rise very early on before any of the other pundits.
He seemed to be trying to give off the air of being unbiased at first, but either he bought into his own game or stopped being able to hide his bias after a while.
It was also appealing to have someone say "I know why Trump is doing well!" when everyone else was saying "No, but really, this doesn't work" even when it was clearly working, that was the reason for his initial rise in popularity.
The end moral of the Adams-Trump saga is that Adams understands white males and what appeals to them very well, but he has no fucking clue about the rest of the general public - so his analysis fell apart after the primaries when women became the most important voting bloc.
|
On October 19 2016 10:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 09:59 Nevuk wrote:This was interesting, but I don't have the legal background to know if it's based in reality or not : The DNC just reached a new low with its latest defensive filing in the class action lawsuit brought by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters.
To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
In describing some of the “inadequacies” in the complaint against it, the DNC called the court’s attention to the following example:
“For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “members of the [Donor Classes] have incurred an injury-in-fact because they … [made] donations, based on the belief that the Democratic presidential nominating process was fair and unbiased,” a belief they say was “propagated and confirmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions…”
According to the DNC’s argument, the assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair can not amount to an appropriate basis for a lawsuit because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” Why did they make that argument? It was a clever legal maneuver. In general, neither donors nor constituents have standing to sue over broken political promises based on a variety of long-held legal principles, not the least of which is that as an appropriate remedy “voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises…” Only the 2016 election could make assumptions of basic fairness seem dirty and suspect.
Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/ The initial complaint in this case was incredibly sloppy and the DNC lawyers are merely opening up with a very standard laundry list of arguments on behalf of dismissal. Lawyers who don't play kitchen sink with their answer to a complaint that's already spurious on its face are not doing their best advocacy imo.
I worked for several attorneys who subscribed to the practice of always filing a rule 12B motion to dismiss to avoid malpractice claims.
|
I'd like to try an alternate form of government. Maybe some sort of non-election based democracy; but not direct democracy, cuz that's trash.
|
On October 19 2016 10:16 zlefin wrote:
I'd like to try an alternate form of government. Maybe some sort of non-election based democracy; but not direct democracy, cuz that's trash.
Come to Switzerland
|
On October 19 2016 10:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 09:59 Nevuk wrote:This was interesting, but I don't have the legal background to know if it's based in reality or not : The DNC just reached a new low with its latest defensive filing in the class action lawsuit brought by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters.
To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
In describing some of the “inadequacies” in the complaint against it, the DNC called the court’s attention to the following example:
“For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “members of the [Donor Classes] have incurred an injury-in-fact because they … [made] donations, based on the belief that the Democratic presidential nominating process was fair and unbiased,” a belief they say was “propagated and confirmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions…”
According to the DNC’s argument, the assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair can not amount to an appropriate basis for a lawsuit because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” Why did they make that argument? It was a clever legal maneuver. In general, neither donors nor constituents have standing to sue over broken political promises based on a variety of long-held legal principles, not the least of which is that as an appropriate remedy “voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises…” Only the 2016 election could make assumptions of basic fairness seem dirty and suspect.
Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/ The initial complaint in this case was incredibly sloppy and the DNC lawyers are merely opening up with a very standard laundry list of arguments on behalf of dismissal. Lawyers who don't play kitchen sink with their answer to a complaint that's already spurious on its face are not doing their best advocacy imo.
agreed 100%, this article is basically trying to create a story where there is none
|
Edit: damn, the link is broke.
Edit 2: I think he might have crashed their site.
|
On October 19 2016 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 10:16 zlefin wrote:
I'd like to try an alternate form of government. Maybe some sort of non-election based democracy; but not direct democracy, cuz that's trash. Come to Switzerland
nah, I looked up the structure, and it has a number of issues with it. works fine enough of course.
|
To make it crazier, it was from BEFORE the tape dropped.
Donald Trump holds a 10-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton in Idaho, a just-completed Idaho Politics Weekly poll shows.
The survey was wrapped up BEFORE the bombshell Trump sexist tape had time to sink in for Idaho voters.
Undoubtedly that tape and the second presidential debate attacks by Trump (and a bit less by Clinton) would have an affect on the presidential race.
IPW pollster Dan Jones & Associates also finds that even though Idaho is voting for Trump, more Idahoans believe Clinton will ultimately win the presidency than those who say Trump will be victorious.
Here are some of the numbers:
40 percent of likely Idaho voters say they favor the Republican nominee.
30 percent stated that they would vote for Clinton.
10 percent pick Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
3 percent prefer Green Party’s Jill Stein.
11 percent say they will vote for some other candidate.
And 7 percent don’t know yet whom they will vote for on Nov. 8.
The new survey – without even the damaging Trump sexist tape in play – shows a shift away from Trump and towards Clinton in Idaho over the last month or so.
An early September survey by Jones found Trump with 44 percent support, Clinton with just 23 percent.
So Clinton has gone from a 21-point deficit to 10 points, with still about a month to go in the race.
But Idaho is a steady Republican state – all of its congressional delegation are Republican, as are all statewide elected officials, with the Legislature heavily Republican, too.
So it would be a real upset if Trump doesn’t end up winning the state and its four Electoral College votes.
But even though Idahoans are sticking with Trump now, Jones finds that 44 percent believe Clinton will be our next president.
32 percent say it will be Trump.
6 percent say it will end up being someone other than one of those two.
And 18 percent don’t have a guess who will be in the White House next.
As one would expect, the presidential race in Idaho is very partisan:
Among Republicans, Trump beats Clinton, 73-6 percent.
Among Democrats, Clinton beats Trump, 85-3 percent.
And among those who said they are political independents (don’t belong to any political party), Trump beats Clinton, 32-27 percent.
With only a 5-point difference among independents, it could well be that the Trump sexist tape will give Clinton a lead there by Election Day.
Johnson, the former GOP governor of New Mexico, does best among those political independents – 17 percent of the independents pick Johnson; 6 percent of Republicans like him, as do 2 percent of Democrats.
The poll was basically completed before the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News – owned by the Mormon Church – issued an editorial (after the tape came out) that called for Trump to get out of the race.
While the News is not circulated in Idaho anymore, many Mormons may now have heard about that editorial, but not before the latest poll was out of the sampling field.
So, before the Trump tape, Jones finds that 54 percent of Mormons in Idaho support Trump, 6 percent like Clinton, 12 percent favor Johnson, 2 percent like Stein, 18 percent are still undecided, and 7 percent don’t know.
An 18 percent undecided number with just a month to go in a major race is odd for any demographic group, clearly indicating that Idaho Mormons don’t know which way to jump in the presidential race this year.
Finally, while there is a real gender gap between Trump and Clinton nationally, not so much in Idaho.
Jones finds that 29 percent of men favor Clinton – the first female presidential nominee in a major political party in U.S. history – 31 percent of women like Clinton.
While 42 percent of men like Trump, and only 38 percent of women do.
Again, this poll was finished before the Trump sexist tape had time to sink into the electorates’ minds, so those gender numbers, too, could well change.
Jones polled 608 likely voters from Sept. 28 to Oct. 9 (the tape became public the morning of Oct. 7).
The statewide survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.97 percent.
|
On October 19 2016 10:16 zlefin wrote:
I'd like to try an alternate form of government. Maybe some sort of non-election based democracy; but not direct democracy, cuz that's trash.
I'm sure we cal all agree here that the system is broken and Clinton will not fix it.She's been part of the problem for years.She benefits from the current system via kickbacks, pork barreling, cushy benefits and a very generous pension scheme.
Say what you like about Sanders but i think he could have made some meaningful changes to the system.Trump made huge wealth outside the system so would have no issues shaking up the political system, thats why such pushback from the establishment politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
