6 ms·

For our American friends, this is like finding that the Democrats screwed over Bernie Sanders during the election campaign. Sounds familiar? There's a differen

For our American friends, this is like finding that the Democrats screwed over Bernie Sanders during the election campaign. Sounds familiar? There's a difference, which is that here Corbyn actually became the Labour party leader. However despite that he's still portrayed as an outsider by the establishment and the media.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rashkov 8y ago
I think this is more like finding out that the republicans screwed over Donald Trump. There's a strong case to be made for Corbyn being in the mold of Trump, but from the left instead of the right.
- rashkov 8y ago
  I would love to find out why I am being downvoted but the parent isn't. My post is no more uncivil or substantive than by the one by "fwdpropaganda".
ryanobjc 8y ago
This is very different. In the American case, private emails in the dnc were talking about preferences of officials. Don’t forget that Bernie Sanders isn’t even a Democrat! So the officials had a preference for a Democrat to win, whatever. No one has pointed to actual harm caused. Ultimately Bernie lost in the primaries even before the super delegates kicked in. Probably didn’t help he didn’t campaign in the south which is a requirement for winning. Bernie lost fair and square and no one has alleged specific wrong doing. Just vague “but emails” - this is worse than circumstantial evidence. So yeah I’d say a far reaching ad campaign to deceive is not at all the same.
- nextstep 8y ago
  No, the DNC absolutely rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. They fought and won a lawsuit about the legality of this practice: http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
  - dnomad 8y ago
    Seriously? That lawsuit certainly does not demonstrate at all, in any way, that any of the primaries were "rigged." It shows what is and was widely known: the DNC had a preference for one candidate. It's extraordinary that two years after the fact so many people still do not understand what happened even though the facts are widely known and documented. This is the power of propaganda but still it's always a bit disturbing to see.
untog 8y ago
The two situations really aren't that similar at all. You don't have to make everything into an opportunity to bring up the 2016 election all over again.
- nextstep 8y ago
  You’re right, the difference was that Labour was unable to prevent Corbyn from becoming the party leader, while the DNC was already decided on anointing Hillary regardless of her actual popularity or electability and was able to prevent all opposition.
  - untog 8y ago
    Sigh. No. Just a few differences: - Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party. Neither Hillary nor Bernie have that position in the Democratic party, because it doesn't exist. A party's presidential candidate is not the same as their party leader. And the method by which each is elected is radically different. - Corbyn was already leader when these events happened. This is the equivalent of Bernie winning the primary (which as mentioned above is already a poor analogy) and then being lied to about what the DNC was doing in outreach for the presidential election. So, not something that mirrors reality at all. - Bernie Sanders was not a member of the Democratic party before seeking to become it's presidential candidate. Corbyn has been a member of the Labour party for decades. - Corbyn represents the resurgence of a relatively old wing of the Labour party, not the beginning of a new movement like Sanders. Basically every part of this dynamic is different. They're both very interesting to study in their own right, and trying to conflate the two to make a political point does nothing justice.
    - nextstep 8y ago
      In both cases, the party establishment tried to prevent a candidate on the left from gaining power through deceitful means. They tried to rig things against Bernie and Sanders. That’s the comparison being drawn here. Does that make sense? (Yes, the details are different as the mechanics of these party systems are very different.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rashkov 8y ago

I think this is more like finding out that the republicans screwed over Donald Trump. There's a strong case to be made for Corbyn being in the mold of Trump, but from the left instead of the right.

rashkov 8y ago
I would love to find out why I am being downvoted but the parent isn't. My post is no more uncivil or substantive than by the one by "fwdpropaganda".

ryanobjc 8y ago

This is very different. In the American case, private emails in the dnc were talking about preferences of officials. Don’t forget that Bernie Sanders isn’t even a Democrat! So the officials had a preference for a Democrat to win, whatever. No one has pointed to actual harm caused. Ultimately Bernie lost in the primaries even before the super delegates kicked in. Probably didn’t help he didn’t campaign in the south which is a requirement for winning. Bernie lost fair and square and no one has alleged specific wrong doing. Just vague “but emails” - this is worse than circumstantial evidence. So yeah I’d say a far reaching ad campaign to deceive is not at all the same.

nextstep 8y ago
No, the DNC absolutely rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. They fought and won a lawsuit about the legality of this practice: http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
- dnomad 8y ago
  Seriously? That lawsuit certainly does not demonstrate at all, in any way, that any of the primaries were "rigged." It shows what is and was widely known: the DNC had a preference for one candidate. It's extraordinary that two years after the fact so many people still do not understand what happened even though the facts are widely known and documented. This is the power of propaganda but still it's always a bit disturbing to see.

untog 8y ago

The two situations really aren't that similar at all. You don't have to make everything into an opportunity to bring up the 2016 election all over again.

nextstep 8y ago
You’re right, the difference was that Labour was unable to prevent Corbyn from becoming the party leader, while the DNC was already decided on anointing Hillary regardless of her actual popularity or electability and was able to prevent all opposition.
- untog 8y ago
  Sigh. No. Just a few differences: - Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party. Neither Hillary nor Bernie have that position in the Democratic party, because it doesn't exist. A party's presidential candidate is not the same as their party leader. And the method by which each is elected is radically different. - Corbyn was already leader when these events happened. This is the equivalent of Bernie winning the primary (which as mentioned above is already a poor analogy) and then being lied to about what the DNC was doing in outreach for the presidential election. So, not something that mirrors reality at all. - Bernie Sanders was not a member of the Democratic party before seeking to become it's presidential candidate. Corbyn has been a member of the Labour party for decades. - Corbyn represents the resurgence of a relatively old wing of the Labour party, not the beginning of a new movement like Sanders. Basically every part of this dynamic is different. They're both very interesting to study in their own right, and trying to conflate the two to make a political point does nothing justice.
  - nextstep 8y ago
    In both cases, the party establishment tried to prevent a candidate on the left from gaining power through deceitful means. They tried to rig things against Bernie and Sanders. That’s the comparison being drawn here. Does that make sense? (Yes, the details are different as the mechanics of these party systems are very different.)