We would need a time machine to stop the GOP from grabbing all the productivity gains for the last 44 years.

WTF Can you not read dude? LMFAO!

[...according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is THE SOURCE of labor data for the USA.

GTFO with this

GTFO with your unbelievably ridiculous ignorance. Incredible that you showed the world you have such embarrassing ignorance. LOL!

astroturfing

Fuck off with that. Nobody pays me for shit dude. I'm just a guy who posts stuff to help people get off reddit. Nobody including myself knows what I'm going to post until I post it. But now that you bring this ignorance to my attention, maybe I should focus more on educating people.

If your own wages haven't kept up with inflation, that is not the fault of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's your own employer's fault.

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.

It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he's doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.

I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.

George Washington did that twice. But he was the anti-Trump.

The Supreme Court not only made the president a king, they also overturned the Magna Carta.

Which the party argued in court that they could do

Bullshit. What was the exact quote made by DWS? You have no supporting quote made by anybody in the DNC for that argument in the document. We would need the full trial transcript to know whether DWS was seriously pretending she could ignore the charter. If you want to be taken seriously, show me an exact quote made by a DNC member in the trial transcript. If you had been able to do that I would say "good job on that" and fully agree that that particular individual should have never worked at the DNC BUT VAGUE CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE WORTHLESS.

According to the document there were exactly 3 arguments.

[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,

2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,

3. and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]

Deciding in smoke filled rooms involves ignoring the charter entirely.

Even if that had been an actual argument supported by a quote from a DNC member, this is still 100% false. The charter doesn't say the delegates have to meet in a no smoking building. It just says the delegates pick the candidate. They could meet in any building they wanted to vote on the candidate. Your assertion that the executive committee could legally ignore the general delegates is completely absurd.

Here’s your fucking link. Now don’t read it, immediately dismiss it and demand even more granular proof of what I initially said.

Okay. But I got no idea what "DE 54, at 36:22-24" is supposed to mean. I've never seen this before. And the first thing I noticed is that Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with this because he's not an idiot.

and the judge agreed

Dude what part of "The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. " do you not understand? The judge did not agree that the charter can be dismissed. The judge dismissed the case because plaintiff did not prove any acts of impartiality.

Which you already know and are ignoring in bad faith

Go fuck off with your god damn lies. You don't know shit about me. You are the only one who cares about Kremlin progaganda from 8 years ago. Normal people do not.

If every bad faith centrist who claims they voted for Sanders in the primary actually had

You aren't talking about me. Because I did vote for Sanders twice, and am not a "centrist". You only heard of Sanders when he ran for president in 2016 right? I was a fan of Sanders since before he became a senator when he was just a congressman in the 1990's.

[But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality.]

The random person filing this lawsuit is not even alleging that the DNC failed to act impartial. She is apparently alleging that DWS PRIVATELY expressed support for Clinton. So what?

[The DNC’s bias, according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as “Guccifer 2.0"]

You know this is Putin right? You were played by Putin so he could get stooge Traitorapest Trump elected. Doesn't that embarrass you? Sanders was outraged more than any other Dem about Trump's gigantic tax cuts for billionaires. So everybody who fell for Kremlin propaganda let down Bernie Sanders.

[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,

2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,

3. and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]

NONE OF THEIR 3 ARGUMENTS are claiming that they don't have to follow the charter. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?

[For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise]

First of all this is the judge characterizing that DWS is characterizing something. None of these are direct quotes. THE JUDGE DID NOT SAY THAT THIS WAS ONE IF THE 3 ARGUMENTS of the DNC in the case. We would have the have the original direct quotes of DWS to know if she was seriously pretending that she could ignore the charter. If we had such quotes than DWS would have been immediately fired from the DNC, if she hadn't already quit.

[While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle. ]

So even in the absolute worst case interpretation of this, there is nothing about the DNC claiming the right to dismiss its delegates. And There is nothing about the DNC claiming the delegates don't have the right to chose the nominee. Which you are implying. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?

You can always get one of those from non-criminals.

DE 54, at 36:22-24

Link? The only way for people to know if you are taking things out of context is to provide a link.

political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles...the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.

So it is exactly like I told you. No court would allow the Executive Committee to disregard the charter, let alone purge the DNC membership of the newly elected delegates.

Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise

This is a judge characterizing something. There are no quotes from the DNC's hired lawyer, let alone from an actual former DNC member, let alone from a current DNC member. You need to provide an actual quote from an actual DNC member before we can judge this claim accurately.

Wasserman Schultz

She's not even there no more. She is not "the DNC".

That’s the party’s position

It's not the "party's position", and certainly not anything they could legally do. All you have provided is a judge's characterization of a former members characterization who wasn't there to give any testimony and which was completely rejected by the judge. We haven't seen any actual quotes of any actual current or former members of the DNC executive committee.

If the judge said that a DNC member could not break the law on some trivial thing why the hell would you think the legal system would allow the current DNC to reject a fundamental rule that the newly elected delegates ARE ALREADY MEMBERS OF THE DNC and can not be arbitrarily purged? The DNC members legally controls who the executive committee members are (and will do so at the convention). You are asserting the exact opposite is true. The executive committee does not have the legal right to remove members of the DNC. You have things 100% backwards. Bernie Sanders would personally explain that to you if you had a chance to talk to him.

Dunno are you an elder abuser?

How utterly convenient from the party whose rules are discretionary when they want to fuck over progressives.

The rules are hardcoded in the charter. The DNC never violated the party charter. Bernie Sanders number of delegates were 100% determined by the votes he got from people like me. I've never heard Bernie Sanders repeating your nonsense. Why the f*ck would I believe a random dunning kruger over Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is way smarter than you are and he never lies.

I read the transcripts correctly.

Then provide the exact reference so I can tell you where your wrong. Show me the exact evidence where a lawyer says "my employers hereby reserve the right to ignore their own organization's charter that is the legal source of their authority". Because I've proved the opposite. And you haven't proved shit. All you ever done in this conversation is repeat vague accustions that came from the Kremlin with no details whatsoever. Also, there is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.

Even if you provide a source, he said the opposite before a judge.

WHO "said the opposite"? A lawyer is a hired employee, not a member of the DNC. He has no authority to violate the party charter. Not one single member of the DNC has ever said such a thing. Since the 1000+ newly elected delegates ARE THE DNC, why would they ever even want to violate the party charter? There is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.

Stop with the 'gaslight' shit. You've given no evidence at all to back up anything you've said. I've 100% proved my case with authoritive sources. YOU are gaslighting ME. Also, there is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.

And finally I want to say this. There is no chance whatsoever that any judge would allow the DNC executive committee to arbitrary purge the 1000+ new members of the DNC and who legally control the DNC and the executive committee of the DNC.

I'm not calling you dumb and I'm sorry I sounded that way. I would never access any financial accounts on a phone or have any financial phone apps because of the gigantic risk. And I would never make any trade that requires another human to confirm my trade. And I would certainly never let any 'broker' access to my investments.

Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds

Only an idiot unwise person would use their phones to make stock trades.

A) I voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.

B) This article explains how things really work and how the elected delegates are legally binded to Biden on the first ballot and that it would be illegal for anybody in the executive committee or anybody besides Job Biden to release the delegates.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-replacement-democratic-ballot-dnc-rules-7aa836b0ae642a68eec86cc0bebd3772

I’ve read the transcripts. They argued that the charter was discretionary.

You misread the transcripts and it gave you a dunning-kruger understanding. Even if the lawyer had said that it would still be completely incorrect.

If the distribution of those nine satellite galaxies across the entire Milky Way is similar to what was found in the footprint captured by the HSC-SSP, the research team calculates that there actually may be closer to 500 satellite galaxies

WTF? I was thinking there were around a dozen or so.

Now I’m sad because I remember wishing Bernie had won.

We all are dude. Or so I am guessing.

It’s easier to fundraise as an opposition party.

Any funds raised can only be used to win elections, not to buy themselves candy and ice cream. But if they don't win they don't get any personal gifts from lobbyists or cushy jobs after leaving office.

it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose

LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense. The only use of the money they raise is to win elections. It's not like if they lose they can use the leftover money to buy a new car. If there even is any leftover money, which there almost always is not.

Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established.

Fascism is actually terrible for capitalism in general though. Not that billionaires are smart enough to understand that.

Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.

Literally no Dem in the entire country prefers Traitorapist Trump to even a house plant. Trump and "real structural progressive economic reform" are completely disconnected things. It's not even remotely an either/or choice.