Two-thirds of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee members are corporate lobbyists or corporate consultants, including ten at-large DNC members appointed by DNC Chair Tom Perez.
No, it very much matters. It could be worse, it could be better. But one thing is certain is that OP is willing to misinform. News is rightfully expected to be recent.
So, imagine some idealistic leftist reads this, then has a conversation with their mainstream dem parents about politics. They passionately quote the information from this article, not realizing it is out-of-date. Their parents, quickly checking for themselves, see that our young idealist is just completely full of shit, the information they gave is simply incorrect.
Does this help or hurt the leftist cause?
Real life is hard, I’m afraid. It’s full of traps and nuance that you can’t just paper over with emotion and faith. This is why being honest and up-front encourages a healthier and more effective resistance.
With news? Yes, unless I am specifically talking about the past.
News goes bad like dairy products, generally speaking. I’ll occasionally dig something old up, like I could dig this up if I was talking about the 2020 election. Or if I wanted to make a point about dems and big money being a historical problem.
But for the current day, always best to play it fair. Especially among people you might realistically be able to convince or who are already allies.
Two-thirds of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee members are corporate lobbyists or corporate consultants
The operative verb is “are”, which is present tense. Can you verify, with sources, that “two-thirds of DNC rules and bylaws committee members are corporate lobbyists or corporate consultants” at this very moment? Or was that true 4 years ago, and we have no idea whether it’s still true today?
Facts matter, and truth matters. If you’re taking the position that only the appearance of truth is sufficient, then you’re no better than the walking word vomit himself.
Here’s you 52 minutes ago: “it sounds plausible and logical, but that doesn’t actually translate to being true.”
Of the 16 members listed in the original Sludge report, 9 of them are still actively serving on the RBC. [1].
James Roosevelt III - yes
Harold Ickes - yes
Barry J. Goodman - No (Considered an important donor still as per 2023 news article hoping Trump runs, also has plead guilty on multiple account of fraud in 2005) [3]
Michael Nutter- No
Alexandra Rooker - No (Is Chair of the California Democratic Party)
Jeff Berman - No (is now a Member for Unity Reform Commission)
Maria Cardona - Yes
Donald Lionel Fowler - Yes (His wife has now joint him on the committee) [2]
Dennis Speight - No
Kathleen Sullivan - No
Donna Brazile - Yes
Scott Brennan - Yes
Rev. Leah Daughtry - Yes
Christopher Lu - No (On April 27, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Lu to serve as Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for UN Management and Reform)
Frank Leone - Yes
David T. McDonald - Yes
Now seeing as you have so much freetime to lurk my profile in an attempt to discredit me, maybe you can better spend your time researching the other members currently sitting on the committee, because as I’ve now shown at least half of those names are still serving in their role, while others have been moved into other positions of power. Some I could not track down, so I was not able to verify their current status.
I’m an Australian, I should not be the one here spending their free time looking into your democracy to hold it accountable. This is your civic responsibility to inform yourself.
Could it be fresher? Sure wouldn’t hurt.
Does it make any difference that it’s only 4 years old? No.
No, it very much matters. It could be worse, it could be better. But one thing is certain is that OP is willing to misinform. News is rightfully expected to be recent.
So in your little fantasy land, every study or investigation past, what, 3 years should be thrown out as useless?
What’s next we can’t point to something Trump said or did 4 years ago today?
OP has not misinformed anyone, you’re just being hyper-critical.
So, imagine some idealistic leftist reads this, then has a conversation with their mainstream dem parents about politics. They passionately quote the information from this article, not realizing it is out-of-date. Their parents, quickly checking for themselves, see that our young idealist is just completely full of shit, the information they gave is simply incorrect.
Does this help or hurt the leftist cause?
Real life is hard, I’m afraid. It’s full of traps and nuance that you can’t just paper over with emotion and faith. This is why being honest and up-front encourages a healthier and more effective resistance.
So you literally ignore everything over 3 years ago?
With news? Yes, unless I am specifically talking about the past.
News goes bad like dairy products, generally speaking. I’ll occasionally dig something old up, like I could dig this up if I was talking about the 2020 election. Or if I wanted to make a point about dems and big money being a historical problem.
But for the current day, always best to play it fair. Especially among people you might realistically be able to convince or who are already allies.
I take back my bot accusation. You aren’t a bot and I’m happy to see you hold some very reasonable opinions. ✊🏼
The operative verb is “are”, which is present tense. Can you verify, with sources, that “two-thirds of DNC rules and bylaws committee members are corporate lobbyists or corporate consultants” at this very moment? Or was that true 4 years ago, and we have no idea whether it’s still true today?
Facts matter, and truth matters. If you’re taking the position that only the appearance of truth is sufficient, then you’re no better than the walking word vomit himself.
Here’s you 52 minutes ago: “it sounds plausible and logical, but that doesn’t actually translate to being true.”
Of the 16 members listed in the original Sludge report, 9 of them are still actively serving on the RBC. [1].
Now seeing as you have so much freetime to lurk my profile in an attempt to discredit me, maybe you can better spend your time researching the other members currently sitting on the committee, because as I’ve now shown at least half of those names are still serving in their role, while others have been moved into other positions of power. Some I could not track down, so I was not able to verify their current status.
[1] https://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=People&sort=Best+Match&addedterm%5B%5D=bylaws&sponsorid%5B%5D=5892
[2] https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/meet-the-fowlers-longtime-sc-democratic-power-couple-hosts-2020-candidates/article_66841624-44d8-11e9-8639-079eb03894c9.html
[3] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr-19386
I’m an Australian, I should not be the one here spending their free time looking into your democracy to hold it accountable. This is your civic responsibility to inform yourself.