Hacker News Reader

Comment by DeWilde | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry, but this seems to me like you are advocating a point. of: "The peasants don't know what is good for them, the party will decide for them."

This would have been fine the DNC came out and said that this is what they are doing. But the DNC has explicitly stated that is unbiased in action (in the [0] of my earlier post) and then they go and do the opposite. This is just plain corruption.

If the contents of the food product you just bought are not the same as the label of the product then fines are levied against the company that sold it.

View on HN

It's not an argument I'm making; it's an argument lawyers for the DNC have effectively made in a court of law defending DNC against a class-action lawsuit by voters. https://observer.com/2016/10/dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-...

"Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to litigate on the basis of purported political promises, including ‘statements of principle and intent in the political realm’..."

The DNC can say it's unbiased, but the rules-as-written allow broad, sweeping bias in how the Democratic party conducts its affairs. It's a party. They're biased by default. The whole point of parties is, basically, as you put it, "The peasants don't know what is good for them." There's a reason so many politicians throughout history have been anti-party. Unfortunately, they stick around and grow in power because they tend to work; focused political alignment beats unfocused noise consistently.

What happened with the Sanders campaign is a whole bunch of voters crashed headlong into a system that works other than the way they assume it does.

Excuse me then, we were discussing semantics vs legality. My point was that by dishonest the DNC was corrupt as by the dictionary definition of corrupt: "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.". Or the Latin origin of the word: corruptus (along the lines of broken)-

Which seems to fit the description of the events and my arguments. You argue that because court rules this as political promises (regularly broken and legal to do) then it was not corruption as the court saw it.

This then seems that politics can be legally corrupt (deceitful). You don't have to agree with me but I vote out candidates that lie even if they fit under my political umbrella. In my opinion this machevellian behavior will end up more painful down the line and it is better to lose one election than to have a broken political system long term.

People weigh in on elections all the time. The public is still ultimately making their choice.

If anything the party always staying out of primaries would be a much larger issue.

Yes, the people weigh on elections and they make their choice. But if they make their choice according to a party that claims honesty yet betrays that honesty with lies, isn't that an issue with the party being corrupt and the people being lied to? Thus corruption, which these leaks ultimately have shown us.

In answer to your question, no.

Being truthful isn’t the goal, achieving the parities political goals is. Gerrymandering for example is a perversion of the core idea of democracy, but failing to use it when your opposition does is a problem. Politics exists in the real world and what should be often takes a back seat to what is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com