888
Bernie Sanders doubles down that people are ‘angry’ with Dems after Pelosi said she didn’t ‘respect’ his remarks
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
888 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1865 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pelosi is wrong. But she is not the owner of the DNC. The DNC is controlled by delegates elected by primary voters. The DNC is not a person or monolithic entity.
I am not postmateDumbass and can't speak for them, but Nacy Pelosi serves as a superdelegate, meaning she wasn't elected to her position in the DNC. Blaming the voters for her presence there is wrong (however, blaming the voters for electing other selfish, poor-performing delegates would be fair game to me). I would guess their frustration is with the system which created this problem. If the people aren't being heard year after year the group should be replaced by something that actually fucking works.
You know who is also a superdelegate? BERNIE SANDERS. Being a superdelegate does not make someone "the DNC" nor make you a member of the DNC executive committee.
I'm frustrated too. But if you don't know how the system works you can't change it. Instead of railing against an invisible boogyman, focus on individual politicians and the media message.
And focus on simple and ideas concepts.
Wealth inequality <-- not nearly enough focus
Identity politics <-- way too much focus.
This is working just fine. Look at the contributions they got.
I'm afraid thats not entirely true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Also, party leadership constantly changes the rules to suit the election cycle. They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want. In the DNC vs Sanders case, they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose, and had no legal duty to fairness or in representing the will of the voters whatsoever.
It is entirely true. No superdelegate can vote in the initial primary vote.
Subject to the DNC charter. They are bound by the DNC charter in the same way that the government is bound by the Constitution.
They argued they could change the DNC charter, which it technically true. The USA how the power to change its Constituion, but it is still bound by it.
they change that rule as needed every election.
Nope. Superdelegates were created in the 1980's. After 2016 it was changed so that they cannot vote in any first round (making them powerless). Nothing has changed since then. This rule will likely still be in effect for the rest of your life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-superdelegates-3367439
the rules were changed in 2016 and then again in 2020, and I'd argue 2024 as well They eliminated new hampshire from the primary process altogether in 2024 for that election, which to me sounds like a on the fly rule change, and a complete denial of those citizens vote in the election process. https://apnews.com/article/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-explained-1935530652e371fa3bffdad209ebea82
They also made a bunch of changes before 2016. The party can and does change its nominating process anytime it wants to, and DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules. They can select wheover they want, in a back room if they wanted to. They won that case. They dont even need to follow the rules they state they are following.
https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules
So do we call it a rule if it doesnt even need to be followed? its more of a guideline as long as its convenient, isnt it?
Nope. The argued they could change their own charter. It's like the Constitution. The USA can change its own constitution but it sill has the right to follow it.
[From the transcript: "The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn't change [the neutrality rule], even though it's a discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva]
Dude your own link contradicts what you said. My quote proved it.
No. It didnt. You just dont have the reading comprehension or are being dishonest about it. I dont want to play that game with you, thanks. You have yourself a nice day now.
What part of "“The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule]" did you not understand? They are clearly talking about rules changes here.