Support NeoGAF

[TI82]

They'll just pivot to attacking who he backed.

i can't even take any of the online critics seriously given that they (the clinton campaign) have openly admitted to hiring online trolls to slander the competition

Proof: http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

You could have just googled it

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887

Start clapping it's 3 candidates, 4 now I guess. A handful of candidates out of 48 contests. Again my point still stands. Amatuer hour.

 

[googleplex]

i can't even take any of the online critics seriously given that they (the clinton campaign) have openly admitted to hiring online trolls to slander the competition

Proof: http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

This is the second time you've posted this garbage. Despite the fact that you know the Clinton campaign has nothing to do with that.

 

[Aylinato]

i can't even take any of the online critics seriously given that they (the clinton campaign) have openly admitted to hiring online trolls to slander the competition

Proof: http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

Already debunked. Next.

 

[JP_]

Start clapping it's 3 candidates, 4 now I guess. A handful of candidates out of 48 contests. Again my point still stands. Amatuer hour.

Seems like he's taking a page out of the Obama campaign strategy.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122481127364465273

 

[Kettch]

Well.

Yeah.

Whether Bernie likes it, or wants to admit it or not. He signed on to the DNC for this election and, gasp, needs to play nice with the establishment (I know, I know) he is now a part of if he wants to actually get some shit done. Campaigning down ticket against his own party, corrupt idiot that she is or not, is not going to accomplish what he wants.

You realize that the man Sanders is supporting, Tim Canova, is a registered Democrat, right? This is a primary.

 

[TI82]

This is the second time you've posted this garbage. Despite the fact that you know the Clinton campaign has nothing to do with that.

Seems they do

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-and-facebook.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

“SuperPACs aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate,” Watson told The Daily Beast. “It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.’”

 

[googleplex]

Seems they do

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-and-facebook.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

The daily beast? Really? And where in that article is any proof or source that Hillary's campaign is coordinating with "correct the record"?

Let alone where dose it say that Hillary Openly admits to it as you originally posted?

 

[TI82]

The daily beast? Really? And where in that article is any proof or source that Hillary's campaign is coordinating with "correct the record"?

Let alone where dose it say that Hillary Openly admits to it as you originally posted?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/


The writings on the wall, you can try and ignore it all you want but it's there. Hillary is actually doing this kind of garbage.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Seems like he's taking a page out of the Obama campaign strategy.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122481127364465273

This is the GE and him turning to take control of congress, not the primary.

By the general election the campaign committee raised more than $650 million for itself, and coordinated with both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and at least 18 state-level Democratic committees to create a joint-fundraising committee to raise and split tens of millions of dollars more.[40][41][42]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008



Obama ran a generational campaign, Sanders is the exact opposite.


Edit: This same thing is what Sanders was whining about calling "money laundering." More to the point of a terribly run campaign. If he can't even run his campaign decently what makes you think he would be an effective executive.

 

[googleplex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/


The writings on the wall, you can try and ignore it all you want but it's there. Hillary is actually doing this kind of garbage.

Jesus Christ... Every last one of those articles source the exact same same QUOTE from Correct the record saying they "believe" can work with the clinton campaign for with out breaking the rules. And NONE of them shows that The Clinton campaign is working directly or indirectly with those people.

So I'll ask you a third time. Where dose Hillary's campaign " openly admits to hiring online trolls" as you insist on posting?

 

[JP_]

This is the GE and him turning to take control of congress, not the primary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008

If you actually read the article, you'd see Obama was reluctant to support down ballot dems during the primary and only started to do so after Clinton dropped out. It seems like Sanders is actually ahead of Obama at this point in the primary.

The approach marks a shift in strategy for the Democratic presidential candidate, who until recently has shunned joint appearances with other candidates. Party congressional strategists said the distancing had frustrated some Democrats, but that Sen. Obama had felt such appearances could dilute his brand and diminish his outsider appeal.

That was in October, well after the primary was over. As far as I know, your number doesn't contradict that.

Obama ran a generational campaign, Sanders is the exact opposite.

That's a weird criticism, considering Sanders does better among every demographic for people under 36.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191465/millennials-sanders-dislike-election-process.aspx

 

[TI82]

Jesus Christ... Every last one of those articles source the exact same same QUOTE from Correct the record saying they "believe" can work with the clinton campaign for with out breaking the rules. And NONE of them shows that The Clinton campaign is working directly or indirectly with those people.

So I'll ask you a third time. Where dose Hillary's campaign " openly admits to hiring online trolls" as you insist on posting?

If a pro Hillary pac makes an online troll squad and says they will be coordinating with Clintons campaign that seems to be enough to satisfy the burden of proof. Unless you are one of them...

 

[googleplex]

If a pro Hillary pac makes an online troll squad and says they will be coordinating with Clintons campaign that seems to be enough to satisfy the burden of proof. Unless you are one of them...

Wait... Did you seriously did accuse me of astroturfing? Do you know Gaf takes accusations of astroturfing extremely seriously right? Now i'll waiting on some sort of proof that I'm a paid online troll. Or an apology.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Well, there goes brainchild again...

 

[pigeon]

i can't even take any of the online critics seriously given that they (the clinton campaign) have openly admitted to hiring online trolls to slander the competition

Proof: http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

Again, how is this different from Bernie or Trump's volunteer online trolls?

 

[megalowho]

If a pro Hillary pac makes an online troll squad and says they will be coordinating with Clintons campaign that seems to be enough to satisfy the burden of proof. Unless you are one of them...

Shielding yourself with paranoia and conspiracy is such an intellectually weak way to shut down debate.

 

[JP_]

Income inequality is not the flagship issue people want it to be. It's a trend that has adversely effected people, yes, but for the most part (read), poverty levels are down to historical lows, and trends show it stabilizing at around 15%.

Wealth distribution and concentration isn't fair, and it gives many corporations and wealthy people advantages the rest of us don't. To be sure.

But it's not the definitive issue of our time. The country is the best it's ever been to live in. Violent crime, trending down, firearms related deaths, trending down, disease, hunger, poverty, et al, trending down.

There are obvious issues that need to be addressed, stagnant wages and cost of living are one of them (and more important than the wealth gap is the adjusting of income to livable levels from state to state, not just at a federal level). But the country isn't shitty.

The US is still a great country, it's just got issues, just like every other country on earth.

I'd never claim wealth or income inequality is not an issue. It is, one that needs to be worked on and addressed.

I just don't believe it's the issue. I agree on your sentiments in general, as well. It's why I view Bernie's campaign through an idealists lens. He is so unwilling to compromise on his ideals or belief structure that he cannot see the forest for the trees.

I'v lived below the poverty line. I know that life. I know what it's like to scrape and fight and not know what bills you'll need to pay this month and which ones you'll have to fight without till next month. I just won't be bought hook line and sinker on an ideologues rantings about how the rich are the cause of all our problems, when in 2010 and 2014, nobody could get off their asses to vote in midterms. Or how Scott Walker won his recall election because nobody went out to vote, or how the GOP has been allowed to strangle our government from functioning because of the apathy of the left when it comes time to turn action into words.

When it comes to elections, the issue is what people think it is. For most people, the economy is still the flagship issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191513/e...ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

 

[NIGHT-]

Meh, I support this. She's terrible.

Same

 

[pigeon]

He got millions of dollars in small donation to make his campaign last until August. However, the demographic in the district isn't in his favor comic August.

Are you talking about Canova or Bernie?

Either way, I don't really see why "he's not going to win the nomination" is a meaningful argument against either him running or Bernie endorsing. Success is not required!

 

[Candescence]

This is not really surprising. DWS's behaviour in her position has been horrific, even the Clinton campaign has told her to knock it off with her antics during the Dem primaries. She's so bad that going after her isn't exactly burning any bridges, and Clinton arranging for her to be booted would actually win her a lot of goodwill from Sanders supporters.

 

[Tabris]

That's a weird criticism, considering Sanders does better among every demographic for people under 36.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191465/millennials-sanders-dislike-election-process.aspx

This is such a key piece of data against the whole "only young white men support Sanders.". What this also tells me is that Black and Hispanic millennials don't vote enough when comparing this data to exit poll data.

 

[BlastProcessing]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/


The writings on the wall, you can try and ignore it all you want but it's there. Hillary is actually doing this kind of garbage.

You seem to see a lot of writing on a lot of walls. That's quite the gift.

 

[Plumbob]

People who say "why vote for Hillary when I supported Sanders" were supporting Sanders for all the wrong reasons.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

"I don't trust Hillary, despite having a consistent liberal slate of political activity for the past 20-30 years I know she's really a Republican"
"I don't trust Trump, but I know if he actually becomes president he won't do these horrible things he says he's going to do"

Every. Single. Thread.

If you don't like Hillary, you don't like Hillary - and that's fine; but the rationalizations for Sanders-to-Trump are just painful to watch in real time.

 

[Merc_]

lmao people are being implied to be paid Hillary trolls for giving Sanders supporters shit now. The paranoia from some Sanders supporters is truly something else. Maybe you guys should consider not allowing yourselves to become so emotional attached to a politician you don't know personally in the future.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Same but I don't want that through the Bernie Sanders progressive inquisition

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

Stump talking total sense. This is why Sanders is still in it. He's 74, burning bridges is really not a concern of his. He just wants to have a big a stick as possible to wave at Clinton to get as much stuff out of her as possible before he endorses. That stick is going to go towards shaking up the DNC, because while Sanders know he personally won't win, a candidate like him might not so far from now, so the road needs to be paved for them.

 

[Tabris]

Bernie Sanders, whether you agree with the tactic or not, has been about focusing on the individual constituents then the representatives. He sees his change in getting constituents to demand from their representatives to move left then for him to convince the representative to move left.

He even sees this extending to the Republican constituents. That's what he is talking about with the "political revolution".

Again, you may disagree with the tactic and you may describe it as idealism, but this is why he hasn't focused on the down-ticket. He's looking even further down the line.

*Source - Almost all of his political revolution speeches.

 

[Jenov]

i can't even take any of the online critics seriously given that they (the clinton campaign) have openly admitted to hiring online trolls to slander the competition

Proof: http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

This comes across as very hypocritical when Bernie himself has a hired group "Revolution Messaging" that is paid to do digital messaging for him, and yes, that includes social media like Reddit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-drive-sanders-political-revolution/81977160/

"Since July, Revolution Messaging has been tasked with overseeing social media, online fundraising, web design and digital advertising for Sanders, sending a steady stream of text messages, emails and issue-based ads urging supporters to donate or volunteer. The team also nurtures and helps grow the communities on Sanders’s already popular Facebook and Reddit pages."

https://revolutionmessaging.com/in-the-press/

edit: an especially damning article about their practices here: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...generated-huge-turnout-for-sanders-in-madison

But oh no, Bernie is way too pure for this, right?

 

[Bel Marduk]

The woman is against medicinal marijuana, for fucks sakes.

Its a reliably Blue district.

Lets get rid of her.

 

[The Technomancer]

Of things I am mad at Bernie about, this is right down on the bottom of the list

 

[AxelFoley]

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

Exactly.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Not that I have any particular love for DWS, but continuing to openly pick fights with the DNC does not bode well for his whole "convince the superdelegates to give me the nomination, for some reason" strategy.

He's never been a Democrat, he's always been Independent until very recently. The Democratic Party doesn't owe him anything

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

Going to have to disagree.

Your theory seems to indicate that every democrat should adhere to a purity test and that it's more effective to use that to kick out people who don't conform.

But that's not how coalition parties work. And the United States has coalition parties by virtue of it being a 2 party system.

It would be far more effective to get a larger majority of democrats. If a democrat agrees with the vast majority of the Dem platform that should be acceptable.

Getting exact adherence across such a diverse country is counterproductive if not impossible.

 

[gutter_trash]

the guy is
a) Mathematically eliminated
b) doesn't have the plurality of Pledged Delegates
c) doesn't have the majority of the Popular Vote
d) doesn't have the support of the majority of SuperDelegaates
e) his recent action will have an opposite affect in his "Superdeleagte Strategy"

it's over.

these next two week will be the longest, most boringest, most uneventful weeks in 2016's election cycle.

It's over

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

That's very close to the logic that spawned the Tea Party. Purity tests are just going to make things more factious. If my back is against the wall I would much rather be forced to negotiate with Bill Nelson than Mitch McConnell.

 

[Sinoox]

Yet another who is conflating her being a Rep and her Performance as DNC. See the post right before yours.

You've got some kind of agenda here and I want to know exactly what it is.

Here's the source material on why I came to the conclusion myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8w5wY_wT9M

If you don't understand what the issue is with her, well, she's straight up lying in that clip. She's trying to make it seem like Sanders has been inciting violence which is not the case. There was also no evidence of violence at the Nevada convention. Which means if you're zoning out over corporate news programs all day you have no idea what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc

^^^^

That's what really happened at the convention and that's why this is a big deal right now.

I'm so ashamed at the people on this site. Do you want a democracy? Do you even care about the state our country or is it just your own selfish motives taking over any kind of rational thought? This isn't about who you support, this is about having a fair election. Debbie has not been doing her job on the DNC and Democrats need to recognize how dangerous this kind of behavior is.

 

[Suikoguy]

You've got some kind of agenda here and I want to know exactly what it is.

Here's the source material on why I came to the conclusion myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8w5wY_wT9M

If you don't understand what the issue is with her, well, she's straight up lying in that clip. She's trying to make it seem like Sanders has been inciting violence which is not the case. There was also no violence at the Nevada convention, which means if you're zoning out watching CNN all day you have been lied to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc

^^^^

That's what really happened at the convention and that's why this is a big deal right now.

I'm so ashamed at the people on this site. Do you want a democracy?! Do you even care about the state our country or is it just your own selfish motives taking over any kind of rational thought? This isn't about who you support, this is about having a fair election.

*sigh*

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/st...tions-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

But the howls of unfairness and corruption by the Sanders campaign during Nevada’s state Democratic Convention can’t change the simple fact that Clinton’s supporters simply turned out in larger numbers and helped her solidify her delegate lead in Nevada.

There’s no clear evidence the state party "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure."

So yes, I do have an agenda, and agenda that focuses on the truth. The Sanders campaign is directly responsible for the behavior of the delegates

But new audio obtained by CNN shows a senior Sanders aide -- on the eve of the Nevada convention -- encouraging the senator's supporters try to "take it over," apparently referring to the event, change party rules and continue the "revolution" that Sanders has long campaigned on.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/index.html

Now if you read my other interactions in this thread, you would see that I do take other issues with DWS, but the Nevada caucus is not one of them, nor should it be.

 

[Sinoox]

*sigh*

Likewise, buddy. I have A LOT to say about the convention, but we're talking about Debbie. I linked to that video because it used all the footage at the convention.

EDIT: Let me get started with your nonsense because I know you won't let that go. 64 Sanders delegates were denied entry because they weren't registered correctly compared to the 8 delegates on Clinton's side. Now, am I pissed about the outcome, NO! Hillary initially won the popular vote in Nevada and their system is so messed up over there that Sanders had more delegates in the end. I don't care if Hillary wins or loses in a state where she had the popular vote, but this is not how you handle a fucking convention. So I ask again, what is your agenda? Clearly it is not an agenda of truth.

 

[Suikoguy]

Likewise, buddy. I have A LOT to say about the convention, but we're talking about Debbie. I linked to that video because it used all the footage at the convention.

EDIT: Let me get started with your nonsense because I know you won't let that go. 64 Sanders delegates were denied entry because they weren't registered correctly compared to the 8 delegates on Clinton's side. Now, am I pissed about the outcome, NO! Hillary initially won the popular vote in Nevada and their system is so messed up over there that Sanders had more delegates in the end. I don't care if Hillary wins or loses, but this is not how you handle a fucking convention. So I ask again, what is your agenda?

Did you bother to read anything I quoted or linked? It appears you did not.
I can't have a discussion with you otherwise.

like:

A constant complaint is that the party’s credentials committee unfairly disqualified 64 Sanders delegates — detailed in a "minority report" and read to delegates by a pro-Sanders credentials committee member.

Sanders supporters were upset because that number of delegates would have tipped the balance and presumably swung the two national delegates back to Sanders.

But there are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings associated with the report, which was written and circulated by Sanders campaign staffers.

Annette Magnus, an activist and credentials committee member, said the 64-delegate figure stems from a list of delegates submitted by the Clinton campaign of Sanders delegates who weren’t registered as Democrats by May 1, which is required under the rules.

Magnus said the committee spent much of Saturday investigating the delegates called into question, and eventually seated six of them. The remaining 58 delegates were rejected because they were either not Democrats by May 1 or the party could not confirm their name or address.

"There was not a vetting process at county convention like the state level convention," Magnus said.

Importantly, the state party reported only eight of the rejected delegates even showed up to the convention, so even if they had been seated it would not have flipped the majority.

 

[Sinoox]

Did you bother to read anything I quoted or linked? It appears you did not.
I can't have a discussion with you otherwise.

No, I didn't (I read your comment) and I won't until you address my initial comment about Debbie. Instead you tried to switch the conversation to the validity of the Nevada convention. I don't have the time or patience to debate people on NeoGaf about politics. You unfortunately do, but I gotta say you're doing a horrible job at it.

 

[Ogodei]

Not the biggest Bernie fan anymore either (i did vote for him in PA, but only because I knew Clinton would win and just wanted to send a message that his economic policy views should be heeded), but this is something i can totally get behind. Fire DWS.

 

[kcp12304]

Likewise, buddy. I have A LOT to say about the convention, but we're talking about Debbie. I linked to that video because it used all the footage at the convention.

EDIT: Let me get started with your nonsense because I know you won't let that go. 64 Sanders delegates were denied entry because they weren't registered correctly compared to the 8 delegates on Clinton's side. Now, am I pissed about the outcome, NO! Hillary initially won the popular vote in Nevada and their system is so messed up over there that Sanders had more delegates in the end. I don't care if Hillary wins or loses in a state where she had the popular vote, but this is not how you handle a fucking convention. So I ask again, what is your agenda? Clearly it is not an agenda of truth.

Those delegates' elegbiltity was determined by a commettie made up of half Sanders Supporters and a Sanders supporting co-chair. Most of those 64 didn't show up anyway. Hundreds of eligible supporters didn't show up either.

There is no conspiracy only complacency.

 

[Suikoguy]

No, I didn't (I read your comment) and I won't until you address my initial comment about Debbie. Instead you tried to switch the conversation to the validity of the Nevada convention. I don't have the time or patience to debate people on NeoGaf about politics. You unfortunately do, but I gotta say you're doing a horrible job at it.

What are you talking about? I was directly addressing your post.

"She's trying to make it seem like Sanders has been inciting violence which is not the case."
See the CNN Story. He was at the minimum indirectly inciting what happened.

"There was also no evidence of violence at the Nevada convention."
True, there almost was. Someone was in the process of throwing a chair, and was stopped. Debbie clearly said "reports of" which was true at the time.

"Which means if you're zoning out over corporate news programs all day you have no idea what's going on. "
Corporate News huh?

"That's what really happened at the convention and that's why this is a big deal right now."
I posted what really happened.

"This isn't about who you support, this is about having a fair election. Debbie has not been doing her job on the DNC and Democrats need to recognize how dangerous this kind of behavior is."
The election has been fair, aside from Republicans mucking up the process with voter id and less places to cast ballots in some states.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Not the biggest Bernie fan anymore either (i did vote for him in PA, but only because I knew Clinton would win and just wanted to send a message that his economic policy views should be heeded), but this is something i can totally get behind. Fire DWS.

Came here to say this. DWS has been pretty awful as a congresswoman and DNC chair. Complete disaster. No idea what her district is like though.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Also, I'd assumed Sanders already endorsed him since Sanders supporters had been donating to him and talking him up for awhile now.

 

[pigeon]

No, I didn't (I read your comment) and I won't until you address my initial comment about Debbie. Instead you tried to switch the conversation to the validity of the Nevada convention. I don't have the time or patience to debate people on NeoGaf about politics. You unfortunately do, but I gotta say you're doing a horrible job at it.

Half your post is about the Nevada convention. As far as I can tell, your entire justification for claiming that DWS is doing a terrible job is about the Nevada convention, and that she's lying and condoning corrupt behavior.

It should not be surprising that people are arguing that she isn't lying or condoning corrupt behavior, and providing evidence to that effect. That is your whole argument. If it isn't true then you haven't offered any reason to dislike DWS.

So saying "well, we're not arguing about Nevada, we're arguing about DWS" seems pretty nonsensical to me. Why do you think DWS hasn't been doing her job, if not because of Nevada?

 

[Suikoguy]

Half your post is about the Nevada convention. As far as I can tell, your entire justification for claiming that DWS is doing a terrible job is about the Nevada convention, and that she's lying and condoning corrupt behavior.

It should not be surprising that people are arguing that she isn't lying or condoning corrupt behavior, and providing evidence to that effect. That is your whole argument. If it isn't true then you haven't offered any reason to dislike DWS.

So saying "well, we're not arguing about Nevada, we're arguing about DWS" seems pretty nonsensical to me. Why do you think DWS hasn't been doing her job, if not because of Nevada?

Oh well, I guess he gave up.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is such a key piece of data against the whole "only young white men support Sanders.". What this also tells me is that Black and Hispanic millennials don't vote enough when comparing this data to exit poll data.

Young people don't vote enough period. It's why they are the demographic a politician ends up trying to appeal to the least if they want to win.