Here is a different take on the DNC emails, from the UK!

[merrily]

Now it's been proven the establishment really was out to get Bernie Sanders, will we accept the same about Jeremy Corbyn?

Given the parallels between Corbyn and Sanders’ campaigns, Corbyn supporters' worries should now be taken a lot more seriously



by Remi Joseph Salisbury, Laura Connelly

During his campaign to be leader of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders and his supporters frequently raised concerns that the party rigged primaries in favour of Clinton. With the leak of 20,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails this week, those Sanders supporters, once thought of as paranoid conspiracy theorists, are now quite rightly feeling a sense of vindication. As the evidence of high level bias and corruption mounts, it is clear that from the very beginning, many within the DNC establishment were deeply committed to ensuring Clinton was their nominee. In the US at least, the mask of democracy has slipped.

<snip>

In the UK, similar claims have been made by Corbyn supporters that the establishment is working against him. Given the parallels between Corbyn and Sanders’ campaigns, should these claims of corruption not now be taken more seriously?

Corbyn’s supporters see the way in which dissenting MPs have brought about their challenge as unjust. There is a strong belief that this coup was incepted since Corbyn’s election; Brexit merely offered an opportune moment. Despite the tearful delivery of her resignation speech, reports emerged that a former Labour special adviser called Joe McCrea had in fact paid for the website domain “angelaforleader.org” days before handing in her resignation. This has bolstered claims that the coup may have planned, with some claiming it may have even been on the agenda since Corbyn was first elected.

It is well-known that the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to keep Corbyn off the leadership ballot after a leadership challenge emerged this month, knowing he would likely win. In closing the ‘loopholes’ which allowed so many registered supporters to vote for Corbyn last year, the NEC has also effectively out-priced those who wish to join as new members or supporters to vote for the leader of the Labour Party: supposedly the party of the working people. Anger has been expressed by those who have paid to become Labour Party members since February 2016 and who have been banned from voting, with over 11,000 signing a 38 Degrees petition to overturn the decision.

More at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn-establishment-emails-coup-labour-party-democrat-convention-out-to-get-a7154906.html

[HereSince1628]

1. Your clip doesn't really relate to DNC emails... that said, trying to get an unfair edge is human

nature. And that's why societies and private organizations go to the trouble of creating laws and rules which have penalties for violating.

People who want to get an advantage spend a lot of time looking for loopholes and I think that characterizes too many successful candidates.

[merrily]

2. True as to human nature. However, this goes well beyond two competitors trying to best each other.

There is a reason the charter of the DNC, which is supported by donations from the public, requires neutrality. And the role of media in politics, the reason it got first amendment protection, is not to collude secretly to help one candidate win and help the other lose. This is not someone succeeding or failing in a race or a business. In a republic, we citizens we fund the whole shebang, have little enough power as it is, especially in what is essentially only a two-party system. Our primary choices are perhaps the greatest bit of power we have--or thought we had.

As far as the article, the relation to the emails is that their discovery and contents are having an impact on the internal politics of another nation, causing more than just the US to squint at their processes. The impact of the emails viewed through the eyes of another nation--hence "a different take." I found it interesting.

[HereSince1628]

3. Your vision of the DNC is voter-centric, the reality of the DNC and American politics is not that

I would much agree that in a better reality it would be.

Choice is an illusion, and politicians want it that way. If there was choice, it would be much harder to herd the sheep, and harder to promise coalition partners that rewards can be achieved by shepherding.

Sheepdogs are, after all, not so genetically distant from the coyotes and wolves, they are just more civilized about how they turn sheep into meals.

[merrily]

4. I don't know the basis for your conclusions about my alleged vision of the DNC.

Any organization is supposed to adhere to its charter. The DNC did not. The DNC, being supported by donations from the public and playing such an important role in our government, given only its nominee for POTUS and that of the RNC has any realistic chance of becoming President, has, IMO, a higher duty to adhere to its charter, whcih is akin to a contract with donors and the public, as well as its members, than two business competitors. Its violations affected millions of donors and voters.

Is your point that violating the charter re Presidential primaries is just fine because of human nature? If so, I disagree. It's also human nature to get violent if angry or frightened enough, but that does not excuse assault and battery.

If not, what is your point?

[HereSince1628]

5. The DNC has become club supporting club members and responding to donors not voters.

And much of the donations it needs to do things like run the convention come from big sponsors rather than donors.

That doesn't make violating their charter right, and it doesn't follow that's rationalized by, even if it tracks, human nature. Human nature. after all. spans the entire range of human behaviors which include all behaviors that humans do.

My point is that their bad acts are happening because the DNC as a clique doesn't really respect it's charter, the range of candidates, or voters. It's attention isn't has always been broader than exclusive focus on voters.

Thank you and, and I beg thousand pardons for having so troubled you by participating in this group.

That won't happen again

[merrily]

6. ?

Wowza.

I am aware of all that. However, they owe a duty to behave in accordance with their charter, did not and are not excused by human nature. That is all I have been saying.

I don't know why that causes a huff. My posts have all been perfectly civil and totally substantive and not at all presumptuous or condescending or carping.