• LostCarcosan@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Take your unhelpful intentional misinterpretations and propaganda somewhere else there, little buddy.

    • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Answer the question. The DNC has and will again simply stop people from running in the democratic primaries. There is no law to stop them from just refusing entry to the party or revoking the party affiliation.

      So primaries do not work for this. As history shows. So how, exactly, are you going to threaten someone if the party says they’re the only blue candidate?

      What if the DNC just stops having primaries? There’s no law that says they have to have primaries, or have to have public primaries. It’s all convention.

      • TacoSocks@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Abdul El-Sayed won his primary then became Senator. Primaries work, focus your energy on getting people to vote in them. DNC isn’t getting rid of primaries, that’s a completely baseless claim.

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 minutes ago

          https://ivn.us/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules/

          In the case Wilding vs DNC in 2016 the DNC argued that they have no duty at all to run a fair primary. DNC attorneys argued that the organization is a private political corporation with the right to select its nominees internally and that statements of neutrality were general political or aspirational remarks rather than legally binding contracts.

          Spiva (DNC lawyer) stated in court: “We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have.”

          The DNC won that case. The judge said, “To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary.”

            • kreskin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 minutes ago

              The Dems had a primary for some states right. The DNC arbitrarily decided to nullify the New Hampshire Dem primary because they didnt follow the schedule change the DNC preferred, in putting right-leaning South Carolina first so a centrist would have a leg up in the Dem selection process. What kind of party just declares that the votes of a whole state just dont matter? what kind of fair election process changes the rules so a more rightwing group has first say?

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s a fair point. We don’t have much leverage in a two party system. Letters to reps aren’t going to cut it, protesting against the “good” guys just as hard as we did against the fascists is basically the only option at this point.

      • Alkali@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 day ago

        Primaries. Vote for who the party doesn’t want. It’s actually really simple.

      • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Voting in primaries is for voting with your feelings. Voting in the generals is for voting with your head. Basically vote in primaries if you don’t like how the dems did and vote blue no matter who in the generals.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          24 hours ago

          I’m saying that we need to properly pressure them instead of expecting them to save us willingly. Waiting for the next round of primaries isn’t enough, they simply won’t make the needed choices if they don’t have to.

          • LostCarcosan@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Well that’s entirely the point then, isn’t it? Tell them that if they don’t do their job properly, then they’ll be fired. I don’t get why that’s such a crazy hard to understand concept, but whatever makes it so hard to understand is probably what got people like Trump into office in the first place

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              If you mean during the primaries, yes. If you mean when it’s Democrats vs Republicans, then it’s an empty threat because not voting is monumentally stupid and hurts us more than it hurts them.

            • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Exactly that’s what got Trump in office, was firing democrats.

              So… again what do you expect people to do?

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        We’re doing the work right now. Climb onboard or get out of the way. We have a long way to go without dragging any deadweight behind us

      • LostCarcosan@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        No, it’s not a fair point. You seem to either not fully understand what voting is or how elections work. The ‘leverage’ is that if they don’t do what we want them to do, they lose their jobs. I wish there were more severe consequences to abandoning the voters, but we don’t have those yet and the only way to get there is to vote