In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote: Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present.
Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of.
The actual reporting seems to point to Bernie supporters misunderstanding convention rules and being generally upset at losing even though Clinton simply had more eligible delegates. And they actually booed Barbara Boxer -- for shame.
Reporting also said Nina Turner was booed. The reporting has been crap. But the article you posted did at least mention this part.
Several Sanders supporters, however, put together what they called a “minority report” of 64 Sanders supporters they believe were wrongly denied delegate status. According to state party representatives, six of those were eventually allowed as delegates, and the rest were denied delegate or alternate status because either they or their records could not be located or they were not registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline.
I know in my own caucuses there has been repeated issues with the state party losing/not providing accurate delegate information. I presume that's why you said "eligible" but left out (as determined by the party which openly endorses the person denying that eligibility flipped the results toward).
So, I waited 2 hours in the Credentials Committee line (10 people in front of me) to be told I was ineligible to be seated today because I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party.
This may sound incompetent on my end, and maybe it's common knowledge, but I didn't know I had to maintain my Democrat registration through this process past the caucuses.
Can someone verify if this is an old rule or something they just made up? They said I had to be registered Democrat by May 1st. After that point, they 'vet' each state delegate on the list to verify they are Democrats.
Rules are rules, but I'd be less disappointed if hadn't wasted 4 (total) hours attempting to fight for Bernie today, when I could have spent an hour or less finding out the same information if the party had their shit together.
Let me also quote the following sentence from the article I linked to: "eight Clinton supporters were denied delegate or alternate status for similar reasons". Nothing fishy going on here -- it's hardly the state party's fault if you don't follow the rules and/or don't reply to requests to submit the correct information.
In any case, and like I said, the final result corresponds to how the popular vote went. Hardly anything to be upset about, to the contrary.
So it happened 8x more frequently to Bernie supporters and there's the part where they were just wrong about at least 6 of them. But yeah, lets just presume the party does no wrong. Even though I've seen first hand the state party losing information I watched them take into possession, lets just presume it's the voters fault.
Yes, six delegates saw their situations resolved, and the rest did not because they apparently did not respect the rules and/or provide the correct and required information. I'm not particularly surprised at Sanders supporters being more likely to not be registered as Democrats than Hillary supporters. But I suppose everything is a conspiracy by the establishment and Sanders supporters can do no wrong. edit: sniped by Jaaaaaasper ,-)
You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Non democrats having a hard time controlling the democratic party seems to be the point of a democratic primary. As opposed to whats happening to the imploding GOP primary.
The DNC is definitely helping Hilary--especially when she's helping them build up funds for all democrats and not just herself.
Bernie Sanders is the only one actually breaking FEC laws and holding on to money he can't have, while "paying back" people who don't exist.
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
How would I come across such evidence, the only people with access would be the people doing it lol?
Can I get you to at least acknowledge how silly it is to say that the DNC both helps Hillary because she helped them and that they are actually not helping Hillary.
It's one or the other, you can't keep saying it's whichever one sounds better for Hillary at the time.
Serious question though, concede just for a moment that it did in fact happen, literally, how could I (or anyone else) access evidence that it happened?
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
How would I come across such evidence, the only people with access would be the people doing it lol?
Provide examples of people who were eligible but unjustifiably disqualified among those 58 delegates. Not their opinion that they should have been accepted or the fact that they "think" they were eligible, but evidence that they were indeed eligible and that the state party disqualified them unjustly.
Right now, your position is not based on anything other that your assumption that if some Sanders delegates were not eligible, it must be because of a party conspiracy instead of because there were issues on the side of the delegates (even though I provided you with a direct example of a Sanders delegate admitting he had switched from Democrat to Independent without knowing it would disqualify him -- and that's only one guy who posted about it on reddit on the same day, so there's no telling how many did the same). Substantiate that claim.
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
How would I come across such evidence, the only people with access would be the people doing it lol?
Provide examples of people who were eligible but unjustifiably disqualified among those 64 delegates. Not their opinion that they should have been accepted or the fact that they "think" they were eligible, but evidence that they were indeed eligible and that the state party disqualified them unjustly.
Right now, your position is not based on anything other that your assumption that if some Sanders delegates were not eligible, it must be because of a party conspiracy instead of because there were issues on the side of the delegates (even though I provided you with a direct example of a Sanders delegate admitting he had switched from Democrat to Independent without knowing it would disqualify him -- and that's only one guy who posted about it on reddit on the same day, so there's no telling how many did the same). Substantiate that claim.
Do you know how the caucus delegate system works? What the available information would be and who would have it? Because if you did, you would see how that's not a response.
Only ~half would have had to be eligible to change the outcome.
Anyway, looks like the chair just took her ball and went home. Ignored motions on the floor and just bounced lol.
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
How would I come across such evidence, the only people with access would be the people doing it lol?
Provide examples of people who were eligible but unjustifiably disqualified among those 64 delegates. Not their opinion that they should have been accepted or the fact that they "think" they were eligible, but evidence that they were indeed eligible and that the state party disqualified them unjustly.
Right now, your position is not based on anything other that your assumption that if some Sanders delegates were not eligible, it must be because of a party conspiracy instead of because there were issues on the side of the delegates (even though I provided you with a direct example of a Sanders delegate admitting he had switched from Democrat to Independent without knowing it would disqualify him -- and that's only one guy who posted about it on reddit on the same day, so there's no telling how many did the same). Substantiate that claim.
Do you know how the caucus delegate system works? What the available information would be and who would have it? Because if you did, you would see how that's not a response.
Only ~half would have had to be eligible to change the outcome.
Yes, the delegates themselves and the Sanders campaign would have such information together. But let's re-cap:
1. The information available points to ineligible delegates being responsible for not being eligible (in both camps) 2. There is no information available to support the idea that the state party rejected individual delegates to favor Hillary 3. You believe that it did so, despite there being no factual basis pertaining to the Nevada state convention to support that belief
I don't think much more needs to be said. Congrats to Hillary for winning Nevada 20-15. Winning 18-17 would not have made any difference with regards to her winning the Democratic nomination, but it's nice to see the will of the initial caucus voters being respected.
On May 15 2016 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote: You're right there's no point at this point. I'm sure that all the voter irregularities are all just coincidence. I suppose it's easier to just try to wave away as conspiracy theory, than just acknowledge like most reasonable observers know, the DNC and Hillary have been working together toward getting her the nomination since before Sanders even got in the race.
Though her supporters go back and forth between "of course the DNC is helping her, she helped them" and "the DNC has been fair and neutral"
Come back to us when you have actual evidence of the Nevada state party deliberately excluding more Sanders delegates than Clinton delegates for the purpose of handing Hillary more state delegates out of the convention.
How would I come across such evidence, the only people with access would be the people doing it lol?
Provide examples of people who were eligible but unjustifiably disqualified among those 64 delegates. Not their opinion that they should have been accepted or the fact that they "think" they were eligible, but evidence that they were indeed eligible and that the state party disqualified them unjustly.
Right now, your position is not based on anything other that your assumption that if some Sanders delegates were not eligible, it must be because of a party conspiracy instead of because there were issues on the side of the delegates (even though I provided you with a direct example of a Sanders delegate admitting he had switched from Democrat to Independent without knowing it would disqualify him -- and that's only one guy who posted about it on reddit on the same day, so there's no telling how many did the same). Substantiate that claim.
Do you know how the caucus delegate system works? What the available information would be and who would have it? Because if you did, you would see how that's not a response.
Only ~half would have had to be eligible to change the outcome.
Anyway, looks like the chair just took her ball and went home. Ignored motions on the floor and just bounced lol.
TLDR: Who needs evidence when one has conclusions? Right? Right?
If you want to watch petulant children causing a ruckus outside the convention because they're upset their candidate overwhelmingly lost, sure. And even then, if he's not completely irresponsible Sanders will be endorsing Clinton before the convention and rallying his troops against Trump, so hopefully that will lead some of his vitriolic supporters to calm down with regards to Clinton.
edit for clarification: I am not calling all Sanders supporters children, to the contrary. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are not like that, and most are ready to rally behind the Democratic nominee in order to defeat the GOP. I am talking about the equivalent of the hardcore reddit crowd painting Hillary as the devil and threatening to vote for Trump if Bernie isn't the nominee. See for example these people, insulting and shouting down Sen. Barbara Boxer for calling for unity and for supporting Clinton:
On May 15 2016 17:18 kwizach wrote: If you want to watch petulant children causing a ruckus outside the convention because they're upset their candidate overwhelmingly lost, sure. And even then, if he's not completely irresponsible Sanders will be endorsing Clinton before the convention and rallying his troops against Trump, so hopefully that will lead some of his vitriolic supporters to calm down with regards to Clinton.
edit for clarification: I am not calling all Sanders supporters children, to the contrary. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are not like that, and they are ready to rally behind the Democratic nominee in order to defeat the GOP. I am talking about the equivalent of the hardcore reddit crowd painting Hillary as the devil and threatening to vote for Trump if Bernie isn't the nominee.
Just the Sanders supporters who won't support Hillary are children then?
I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
Why would anyone go out on stage and do this? For what purpose?
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
Why would anyone go out on stage and do this? For what purpose?
On May 15 2016 17:18 kwizach wrote: ... See for example these people, insulting and shouting down Sen. Barbara Boxer for calling for unity and for supporting Clinton:
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
Why would anyone go out on stage and do this? For what purpose?
On May 15 2016 17:18 kwizach wrote: ... See for example these people, insulting and shouting down Sen. Barbara Boxer for calling for unity and for supporting Clinton:
Yes, Boxer is the one who directed Sanders supporters to boo her from the start of her speech, and to call her a bitch, so that she could play the victim. Brilliant.
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
Why would anyone go out on stage and do this? For what purpose?
On May 15 2016 17:18 kwizach wrote: ... See for example these people, insulting and shouting down Sen. Barbara Boxer for calling for unity and for supporting Clinton:
On May 15 2016 17:59 zeo wrote: I don't get it, Clinton already has the nomination in the bag... why resort to this? The establishment of both parties are just so out of touch, who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to pull a Colorado? That won Trump the nomination. And Hilary doing this.... just let him keep the delegates and keep a low profile.
Looking back many people on this forum were cackling with glee watching the GOP tear itself apart with 16 or something candidates while the Democrats had two kumbaya we don't want to attack each other runners. Who in their right minds thought that hijacking the convention would bring more good than bad? It's clear looking at the MSM they want to suppress any news about this but the Berniebots are going to go into hyperdrive propaganda mode among Bernies voters.
At the end of the day Bernie voters are going to be pissed, really pissed. Maybe the Republican party won't be the one that teared itself apart in the end, the Democrat establishment is far more rabid.
It was clear from early March that the post-Sanders DNC was not going to be like the pre-Sanders DNC. Whatever a party is, it can't resist an anti-establishment candidate without being torn apart.
Why would anyone go out on stage and do this? For what purpose?
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CieziUPXEAAjW4o.jpg:large)
