|
Brainiac Five posted:Why? This isn't a governmental decision, so what is the compelling reason to publicize it beyond a desire to corrupt the process by threatening people who don't vote the way you like? You seem to think that it doesn't corrupt the process with governmental decisions though?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:Let's make every single post about me and exaggerate every goddman thing I don't agree with. Hooray for me! If you want to shut me up, you'll have to kill me, babe. I enjoy the right to freedom of speech and will use it until you Bernouts make it illegal to criticize Bernie, at which point I will be murdered by your secret police. Looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you want to shut me up, you'll have to kill me, babe. I enjoy the right to freedom of speech and will use it until you Bernouts make it illegal to criticize Bernie, at which point I will be murdered by your secret police. Looking forward to it. me too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:You seem to think that it doesn't corrupt the process with governmental decisions though? Government is inherently public in a way political parties are not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I missed this, is it true? For example I can't find the individual votes from the 2011 DNC election anywahere online. Changing the rules for this specific election to allow a secret ballot would be a clear sign that the Democrat establishment views itself in open conflict with progressives (and fears reprisals). I'd be a little shocked if it's true. Because there weren't any for 2011.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:me too. Don't you have a cross to burn on someone's lawn, Bruno?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Government is inherently public in a way political parties are not. But political parties are what run the government?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Government is inherently public in a way political parties are not. fortunately, the dem charter says they are public in this case: "All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. "
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:fortunately, the dem charter says they are public in this case: "All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. " Which makes me wonder why they would suddenly be sweating it now, when they wouldn't have earlier?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Because there weren't any for 2011. hmm so the Centrists in control of the party have been ignoring their own rules for a long time
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Don't you have a cross to burn on someone's lawn, Bruno? Nah, that was some guy who was actually two dogs in a Klan outfit. I think they got distracted and started digging holes to find some bacon they buried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm so the Centrists in control of the party have been ignoring their own rules for a long time No, there wasn't a leadership race in 2011. The last time there was an open leadership race was 2005.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Don't you have a cross to burn on someone's lawn, Bruno? As it is, you don't seem to have really posited any information to corroborate your hypothesis, so I would be pretty interested if you would do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How many trees are in your back yard? I dunno; half a dozen? I guess it depends on where the property line is drawn. I'm just going to repeat that to you because I know it burns you up. The only thing you ostensibly have - the ability to win elections - you demonstrably can't even achieve. No ideas, no substantive policy aside from occasionally bombing people in Libya & Yemen, no actual protection offered to minority groups until the body public is already on board... and now, finally, no election victories either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:But political parties are what run the government? They're voluntary associations and demanding that people have no or extremely limited privacy if they're a member is counterproductive and morally disgusting. Condiv posted:fortunately, the dem charter says they are public in this case: "All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. " Then you'll have plenty of chances to find out who to harass and stalk for voting wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:No, there wasn't a leadership race in 2011. so they're ignoring their rules now cause last i checked there was an election in 2017, and the ballot has not been made public
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They're voluntary associations and demanding that people have no or extremely limited privacy if they're a member is counterproductive and morally disgusting. Except they had a private vote? Also running for office is voluntary as well, so I see no problem with scrutinizing these voluntary positions as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so they're ignoring their rules now The ballots were signed and verified and the count made public to those in the room, so no they followed their rules. thechosenone posted:Except they had a private vote? Also running for office is voluntary as well, so I see no problem with scrutinizing these voluntary positions as well? No, they had a vote on paper. The ballots were signed and verified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Except they had a private vote? Also running for office is voluntary as well, so I see no problem with scrutinizing these voluntary positions as well? You are demanding they not have any privacy except where you say they can. Should employers be able to demand employee political affiliations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The ballots were signed and verified and the count made public to those in the room, so no they followed their rules. Well, that certainly seems clear to me! Rather, it feels like it sort of actually decreases transparency unless they have someone leak, and then it seems like it punishes those who are in the minority in the party, where they can be harmed much more directly than by some poor person across the nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why the DNC should ignore their own bylaws?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You are demanding they not have any privacy except where you say they can. Should employers be able to demand employee political affiliations? Why would you say they cannot have any privacy except where I say they can? I only seem to want to know what they vote for? What else do you think I want?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, that certainly seems clear to me! Rather, it feels like it sort of actually decreases transparency unless they have someone leak, and then it seems like it punishes those who are in the minority in the party, where they can be harmed much more directly than by some poor person across the nation. What, no. Crowsbeak posted:Can anyone explain why the DNC should ignore their own bylaws? They didn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Oh my god pull up everyone please I can't keep listening to this bootlicking freak apologize for powerful institutions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you want to shut me up, you'll have to kill me, babe. I enjoy the right to freedom of speech and will use it until you Bernouts make it illegal to criticize Bernie, at which point I will be murdered by your secret police. Looking forward to it. I'd love it if you shut up for a bit so we can discuss the (D) and DNC. Honest question: Why are you obsessed with criticizing Bernie? Don't you have actual Democratic Party leaders to talk about? Shouldn't you be worried about the 2018 election, which is practically happening tomorrow? What message is your political guild going to put out to assure a win in 2018? What strategies have you developed to get more working class votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You are demanding they not have any privacy except where you say they can. Should employers be able to demand employee political affiliations? As far as employers and political affiliations, do you have any reason to say why not? I know how I feel on it and why, but I would like you to get over that shyness and tell us about your own reasoning. It would likely go a long way to helping me understand your points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:What, no. So they shouldn't release the names of who voted for whom despite it saying so? Or are you just trying to pretend laws don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Why would you say they cannot have any privacy except where I say they can? I only seem to want to know what they vote for? What else do you think I want? But you're not acknowledging any right to privacy on their part, just that you'll let them have some. Just like your boss demanding to know who you voted for isn't a total invasion of your privacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The ballots were signed and verified and the count made public to those in the room, so no they followed their rules. shall be open to the public, not made public to those in the room. "All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. " how can you possibly get your reading out of that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
The ballots weren't secret, they had names on them. That doesn't mean the DNC is obligated to share that information with everyone. A ballot which identifies the voter is not a secret ballot. Nothing has changed here. This is just another Bernout fever dream of persecution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The ballots were signed and verified and the count made public to those in the room, so no they followed their rules. Are you seriously arguing that a meeting counts as being open to the public as long as they tell the members of the meeting what the vote count was and nobody else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So they shouldn't release the names of who voted for whom despite it saying so? Or are you just trying to pretend laws don't exist. The bylaw does not say that? Cerebral Bore posted:Are you seriously arguing that a meeting counts as being open to the public as long as they tell the members of the meeting and nobody else? The meeting was open to the public? Like I don't think you seem to have a very good grasp of what an "open meeting" is from this post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I'd love it if you shut up for a bit so we can discuss the (D) and DNC. I believe that letting you fuckers say poo poo like "political guild" without objecting is tantamount to suicide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:What, no. No why? It seems that without people who support them in the public arena, those who are against the establishment are vulnerable to reprimand by those who are closer to them. Brainiac Five posted:But you're not acknowledging any right to privacy on their part, just that you'll let them have some. Just like your boss demanding to know who you voted for isn't a total invasion of your privacy. Alright, what privacy should they have? Besides the votes we want to see that is. I am amenable to other privacies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
People whose jobs are to be aprt of a political process, lose their right to privacy when it comes to be about being involved in the political process BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The bylaw does not say that? "article 9 section 12: "All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot." " Yeah actually according to this I do have the right to know. Stop lying to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:As far as employers and political affiliations, do you have any reason to say why not? I know how I feel on it and why, but I would like you to get over that shyness and tell us about your own reasoning. It would likely go a long way to helping me understand your points. I asked you, I didn't say "I want to hear some clumsy rhetorical dodges away from a simple question."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I believe that letting you fuckers say poo poo like "political guild" without objecting is tantamount to suicide. Not really. People aren't mad at you for the failures of the democratic party. Heck, if anyone gets put against the wall, you'll be able to fit in with the mob real easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I asked you, I didn't say "I want to hear some clumsy rhetorical dodges away from a simple question." Sure, I think they should. Why not? You've yet to provide anything convincing, so I imagine your reluctance to give reason to your assertions will make difficult the task of explaining why I am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:No why? It seems that without people who support them in the public arena, those who are against the establishment are vulnerable to reprimand by those who are closer to them. Not really, no. The ballots weren't secret, but they weren't by voice or show of hand. Crowsbeak posted:People whose jobs are to be aprt of a political process, lose their right to privacy when it comes to be about being involved in the political process It's not my fault you're incapable of reading? The meeting was open tot he public. The ballots weren't secret. They were loving signed. Again, sorry you're literally incapable of reading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Are you seriously arguing that a meeting counts as being open to the public as long as they tell the members of the meeting what the vote count was and nobody else? You're conflating two unrelated sections of the bylaw. Secret ballots don't have anything to do with whether or not the ballots are made available for public inspection. Whether or not the meeting is open to the public has nothing to do with publicizing the votes made at that meeting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:43
|
|