Support NeoGAF

[n00bsauce87]

I agree party can decide who it wants to hear from. I do think at this point in history ignoring independents could be a mistake come general elections. Independents are over 40 percent of voters.

Ahhhh, that is the point there. When the general elections come, pander to the independents during that time because NOW they can vote for whoever. Sanders could attract 100% of the independents in NYC (using as an example), but he wouldn't have been able to get one vote because it was a closed election that was publicized long enough for people to switch over. It's the rules. Sanders put himself in a box and probably figured that he'd get better traction as a democratic candidate than an independent one.

He was right, but he alienated his voting block in the closed primaries. Nothing he could do.

 

[plagiarize]

The partys have done no such thing. The founders and the system we have lend to a majority / minority dualistic system of government and that's what causes the formation of two camps.

There's also nothing stopping a left leaning coalition from working within the system and making the case to lead the party in one direction over another. Obama did it to beat Clinton. History is ripe with example of how that leads to change within the two party system.

The issue isn't the partys or the system.

The issue is a tiny, loud minority isn't getting its way fast enough, can't figure out how to form a broad coalition; so they're kicking and screaming and undermining their own efforts.

And soon they'll go back shutting down highways and sitting in squares and complaining that the system doesn't work; when instead of working to bring over hearts and minds they just gave up after 6 months of keyboard bashing and being dicks.

The best way to win support is to peacefully engage with people who don't share your opinions. It doesn't get results quickly, but it gets results. You have to build empathy with people. Hearts and minds and all that.

If you just start yelling and insulting someone for daring to have a different opinion to you, or you claim that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is corrupt...

How does that win people over to your side? It doesn't.

There's been a lot of shouting down and undermining from Sanders and his supporters when it comes to dissenting opinions. That's a great way of reinforcing your own beliefs. It's a terrible way of winning an election.

 

[SlimySnake]

Wow. Far left sounds just as bad as far right.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Wow. Far left sounds just as bad as far right.

It's a minority of a minority who are frustrated and annoyed that other people don't agree with them.

In 3 months people will barely remember they existed.

 

[plagiarize]

It's a minority of a minority who are frustrated and annoyed that other people don't agree with them.

In 3 months people will barely remember they existed.

I think extreme measures to prevent such extreme viewpoints from finding a home *within* the DNC are probably justified. We don't want that toxic group to get a foothold in the party as the toxic far right did the GOP.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think extreme measures to prevent such extreme viewpoints from finding a home *within* the DNC are probably justified. We don't want that toxic group to get a foothold in the party as the toxic far right did the GOP.

The toxic far right had the party's support, corporate money behind them, and a 24/7 cable news propaganda machine to help develop them into the force they became.

The far left crazies have none of that and will go nowhere.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Jeff Weaver on CNN

the senator has been very clear, people who are supporting the senator should act in a civil way. they should obviously fight within the context, and by fight, i mean contest if there is a convention, they should be there, they should present their case. and then let the votes fall where they may. the situation in nevada is a little different. obviously no context justifies any kinds of threat or violence. but you know, we have been obviously campaigning in nevada for almost a year, because of, you know, it's one of the early states. the state party has a lot of problems. they've run things poorly. it has been done very undemocratically. and and unwillingness on the part of the nevada democratic party to bring in all of the new people that bernie sanders has brought into the process.if you read some of the reports from what went on there, the chair was clearly ignoring votes from the floor at the clark county democratic convention in nevada. they tried to arrest their own credentials chair, because she was being too fair to the sanders people. i mean, it is dysfunctional or worst out there in nevada. it is not a reflection of all democrats in nevada, but the party hierarchy has a lot of problems there. they didn't have enough chairs for the number of people who were supposed to be. obviously you're trying to exclude people if the room is too small for the anticipated audience. so there is a lot of work to be done. we could have a whole show on the nevada state democratic party. but regardless

Harry Reid is going to eviscerate the Sanders campaign for this.

Business state Democratic chairwoman oversees targeted by Berners

Beginning about 3am on Sunday morning our bartenders at Porchlight Grille began getting non-stop phone threats from Bernie partisans," Gallagher told me via email. "The level of threats including death threats and vitriol was astonishing. One of our bartenders was actually a Bernie supporter and was stunned at the threats he was hearing on the phone. He began to respond telling people that he was just trying to do his job and pay off his student loans and their tactics were harming his livelihood. It made no difference to the callers. Their goal was to harass and as became clear....to shut down the business and Roberta’s job with it."

 

[Blader]

obviously no context justifies any kinds of threat or violence. but you know,

:lol

You can't claim to condemn something and then immediately offer an excuse for it. That's not a condemnation.

 

[dave is ok]

I think this primary season has well-established that loudness doesn't automatically translate to more votes. 😏

Isn't that the entire point of a voice vote?

 

[Maledict]

So, rather than absolutely condemn the behaviour, we get one quick sentence about not being naughty, and then a ream of stuff that basically says they stole an election from Bernie.

The entire campaign's behaviour is appalling, and I'm sorry but this is worse than Clinton in 2008 at this stage. This has the potential to cause real harm to the party in November at this rate.

 

[Pastry]

So, rather than absolutely condemn the behaviour, we get one quick sentence about not being naughty, and then a ream of stuff that basically says they stole an election from Bernie.

The entire campaign's behaviour is appalling, and I'm sorry but this is worse than Clinton in 2008 at this stage. This has the potential to cause real harm to the party in November at this rate.

It is already causing real harm, that ship has sailed.

 

[Damaniel]

It's a minority of a minority who are frustrated and annoyed that other people don't agree with them.

In 3 months people will barely remember they existed.

Well, except for all the people who've been doxxed and threatened by a bunch of antisocial neckbeards (not that they have the means or the guts to make good on their impotent threats, but whatever). I hope that every last one of them is hunted down and forced to spend some time in a jail cell.

I hope these types of events lead to the party switching to closed primaries. No need to let children with a fundamental misunderstanding of how political parties work try to destroy the system from within - they can go create their own party if they feel their message is so damn important. I think they'd find very quickly that their 'revolution' would go absolutely nowhere if they actually had to do any work to achieve it.

I'm also very disappointed that Bernie won't come out and actually condemn these actions. By spreading the 'everyone but me is corrupt' message all over the place and giving a 'violence is bad but I can't blame them' non-condemnation (actually, more of a veiled threat), what other outcome would you expect? I mean, I heard a Bernie supporter on NPR yesterday call all non-Bernie supporters stupid low-information voters (not implied, outright *said*) - behavior that Bernie has effectively supported through his lack of condemnation. Bernie either needs to rein his supporters in or get the hell out of the race. (Honestly, at this point, Bernie needs to rein in his supporters *and* get the hell out of the race.)

 

[gutter_trash]

Wow. Far left sounds just as bad as far right.

Yuo and then they get Venezuelaed

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Perhaps if they had other realistic options for example if there was a realistic opportunity for them to move their agenda forward with 5% of the vote - you might have a point.
Right now there is only TWO realistic options for president and you don't gain anything as a third party not even a national audience due to the way debates, coverage and polls are structured.

Then join the Republican or Democratic party? Or else work to build one up one of the smaller parties in your area. Both are valid options but the parties should be able to select the candidate that is wanted by their members, and not someone who really supports the green or libertarians and is only voting since their candidate doesn't have a chance in the general.

 

[Vanillalite]

Maybe during a democratic primary, they want to only hear from registered democrats.

That's not punishing independents. They literally don't care about what they say. And that's okay because they aren't pushing independent candidates. It's a tough pill to swallow, but they don't owe anything to people who aren't registered to their party.

Actually they owe everyone considering both parties make use of public funds and public election setups.

That's been the crux of this for years.

I'm fine with both parties having 100% closed primaries so long as they don't make use of public funds or setups.

 

[plagiarize]

The toxic far right had the party's support, corporate money behind them, and a 24/7 cable news propaganda machine to help develop them into the force they became.

The far left crazies have none of that and will go nowhere.

All I'm getting at, on topic, is that if what it takes to prevent such nonsense is the kind of gavel swinging we saw in NV, then I can stomach a bending of the rules.

The crap that happened was to try and maintain order when you had an angry group of Sanders supporters trying to sabotage and hijack the entire process. Yes it probably went too far and didn't follow the rules...

But that doesn't call the *result* into question as much as people want it to.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Fuck primary season.

 

[benicillin]

I would prefer that Sanders come out and condemn everyone who was involved harshly, but I get the feeling that he's in completely over his head at this point and has no idea what to do about it.

I do wish that some of you would tone down the nastiness directed at him and his supporters though when it's such a minority of a minority of his support. All this talk of damaging the party and whatnot - a lot of all these problems have nothing to do with Bernie and everything to do with a total lack of political and voter education. If it wasn't Sanders it would be someone else. Many of the people Sanders are bringing into the fold are young, haven't voted often before or just aren't aware of the political process or how it works, so stuff like this completely shocks them. And his campaign since day one has been woefully underprepared to educate them.

The voting process should be easy to understand and the DNC should be going out of it's way to make voting in primaries and the GE as easy and convenient as possible, and for a lot of states it's been anything but that.

 

[Omegasquash]

It is already causing real harm, that ship has sailed.

Agreed. The Dems run a much bigger risk of not being as united as they could be, because of the Sanders campaign.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

I'll preface by saying that I think people on both sides here are despicable. With that said, I probably have what many would consider (at this point) an extreme viewpoint on the big picture here...

It's inevitably going to get worse before it gets better imo. Probably a lot worse. People are mad. People are getting fed up and more disillusioned by this facade as time goes on. It's an unfortunate situation for sure.

It seems like everyone has their convictions and sometimes they contrast in such a manner that it eventually seems the only resolution is war. When someone is (or feels) backed into a corner and all they have left are those convictions, with seemingly no option but to fight or die, I believe they'll fight.

Lord Acton wrote the words "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This was over 125 years ago and nothing has changed. These words have rang true through history and will be just as true long into the future, so long as there is a future for us.

It probably sounds extreme at this point, but given time and the current direction we're going I think it could end in war. Either the balance of power will shift, or there will be war.

And if we're still here after that then we'll do it all over again.

 

[giga]

Jesus. Only three weeks till this is over.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

The "Its bad, BUT..." reaction from some people about this disgusts me.

 

[kirblar]

Jesus. Only three weeks till this is over.

You really think High Sparrow's going to give up his donation stream?

 

[giga]

The "Its bad, BUT..." reaction from some people about this disgusts me.

Actually, it's about ethics in..

 

[atr0cious]

So we can't see politicians are influenced by money unless we can point out clear cases of quid pro quo Right?

This line of questioning is really gamergaterish. Seems like it's something that would be in 4 Chan with their lists of attacks and defenses against sjws. This inverted plausible deniability bullshit.

 

[Drek]

Actually they owe everyone considering both parties make use of public funds and public election setups.

That's been the crux of this for years.

I'm fine with both parties having 100% closed primaries so long as they don't make use of public funds or setups.

All parties use the public election system. Why single out the two dominant parties to be more inclusive when the other parties just appoint people by fiat?

All parties have access to public funds if they cross the clearly established public support thresholds. There is no two party cap. This is how democracy works. The vast majority stick within the two party system and therefore the minority is too small to merit public funds.

 

[Blader]

I do wish that some of you would tone down the nastiness directed at him and his supporters though when it's such a minority of a minority of his support.

When behavior like this happens, it's on the candidate and/or his campaign to condemn it. Saying "yeah it's shitty behavior, but there was a reason for it and lets talk about the real issue at hand" is not a condemnation. The "nastiness" aimed at Bernie's campaign for not swiftly and directly condemning these people is earned.

 

[benicillin]

When behavior like this happens, it's on the candidate and/or his campaign to condemn it. Saying "yeah it's shitty behavior, but there was a reason for it and lets talk about the real issue at hand" is not a condemnation. The "nastiness" aimed at Bernie's campaign for not swiftly and directly condemning these people is earned.

I don't disagree with you. It's a shitty situation all around.

 

[sycam0re]

Bernie bros is used to paint all bernie supporters with an inaccurate broad brush. It doesn't just point out the individuals doing the harassment.

no, "bernie bro" clearly references a type of asshole Bernie supporter as seen in the op

I say this as someone who plans to vote for him

 

[Vanillalite]

All parties use the public election system. Why single out the two dominant parties to be more inclusive when the other parties just appoint people by fiat?

All parties have access to public funds if they cross the clearly established public support thresholds. There is no two party cap. This is how democracy works. The vast majority stick within the two party system and therefore the minority is too small to merit public funds.

It's not about inclusiveness.

It's about public cash.

IMO as soon as you make use of public funding or current voting setups you gotta let anyone in. That's for every party in my eyes.

Don't want to do that? I'm fine with that. You just have to privately fund everything.

 

[TheOMan]

The extreme Bernie Sanders supporters make his entire campaign look bad...and that he doesn't come out and swiftly condemn this makes it look even worse. I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm even waaaaaay less of a fan of Bernie. Ugh.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's not about inclusiveness.

It's about public cash.

IMO as soon as you make use of public funding or current voting setups you gotta let anyone in. That's for every party in my eyes.

Don't want to do that? I'm fine with that. You just have to privately fund everything.

And I think if you want to have a say in who a political party picks to represent them in an election you should be a part of that political party.

 

[Barzul]

As long as Bernie doesn't come out and condemn this very strongly, in my eyes he's complicit. It's not a far throw from what Trump did with his supporters egging them on to be violent against protesters. To some Bernie supporters everyone who doesn't support him is scum, a shill, establishment crony. The keep coming up with new names.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Sanders is admittedly caught in a tough spot. It's now more clear than every caucuses are a huge mess, too complicated for people entering politics for the first time, and need to be abolished. The money compared to simply doing an open/closed primary isn't worth it. Unfortunately, given that Sanders is only where he is now because he successfully used the caucus system to his advantage means denouncing them is not in his personal interest, even though it's the right thing to do.

Sadly, I imagine no progress will be made and people will forget about the caucus nightmare until the next Reddit-esque political campaign craze cranks into gear again. Caucuses aren't fundamentally an evil system when it's truly an issues vs. issues campaign, but it only takes demagoguery on one side to turn it into a firestorm.

edit: Also, people are missing a big picture part. Sanders is fighting tooth and nail for 3 delegates when he's down ~290 this late in the game. This is like rule-lawyering in a football game where you need to run 5 touchdowns to win with a minute left. This mess could have simply been avoided by Sanders conceding that this outcome isn't going to change anything (and is in fact a representation of the original caucus results) and facing the grim reality he seems too out of touch to accept: He is not going to be the Democractic party nominee while having an overwhelming deficit of both delegates and popular vote.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's not about inclusiveness.

It's about public cash.

IMO as soon as you make use of public funding or current voting setups you gotta let anyone in. That's for every party in my eyes.

Don't want to do that? I'm fine with that. You just have to privately fund everything.

Everyone is able to vote in a closed primary. Nothing is stopping you from joining the party.

 

[pigeon]

there is a simple solution to all of this:
1) replace all caucuses with primaries.
2) make them all closed to registered Dems only.

there, if independents want their own Presidential candidate, they can go make their own party.

It's unfortunately not that simple. The reason states have caucuses is because nobody has funded a primary. Caucuses just require an empty room and eight hours, they're way cheaper to run. Primaries are basically just little elections.

Switching everybody to primary would be fine with me, but it's a question of money and legislation.

Isn't that the entire point of a voice vote?

No. Is that really what you think, that assemblies hold voice votes because they want people who yell louder to have more representation?

The purpose of a voice vote is to check very quickly whether there's a clear majority in one direction or the other. Generally you hold them in, like, parliaments and senates, where people don't immediately respond by screaming, because that would completely invalidate the voice vote. If one side is deliberately yelling louder then it kind of makes the whole vote ineffective. (Although I'm surprised the GOP hasn't tried this.)

I'm honestly not sure what the effective outcome would be here. Sure, if you're not sure of a voice vote you can hold a division or roll call, although I'm not sure they actually had a roll to call. But, I mean, clearly there's a contingent in the caucus who's not respecting rules of order. Why would they respect the division or the roll call? Why wouldn't they just disrupt them and threaten violence as well? It's easy to say "oh well we should be following the process" but you actually sacrifice your right to regular order when you're screaming obscenities at the chair, that's like in Robert's Rules and everything.

Maybe they should have shut down the caucus because of fear of violence from Sanders supporters? Do you guys think that would have gone better?

It's surprising to me how many people seem to be willing to say that, no matter how antisocial and angry your behavior is, if you're not treated with politeness and concern for your feelings, people are being unfair to you. Societal expectations go both ways! If you aren't wiling to engage with the party, the process, and the structure, why would you expect them to engage with you?

 

[Vanillalite]

And I think if you want to have a say in who a political party picks to represent them in an election you should be a part of that political party.

Again that's fine. Just don't take public money.

As soon as your party takes public funding from the general public you lose out on this.

 

[Fenderputty]

cant wait for this to be over with so Bernie and his diehards can all crawl back to irrelevancy like they should have done months ago

 

[pigeon]

Again that's fine. Just don't take public money.

As soon as your party takes public funding from the general public you lose out on this.

Your position is fine, I guess, but it's not the democratically accepted one in America! Most people are totally fine with closed primaries receiving public funds. Maybe go advocate for change.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's not about inclusiveness.

It's about public cash.

IMO as soon as you make use of public funding or current voting setups you gotta let anyone in. That's for every party in my eyes.

Don't want to do that? I'm fine with that. You just have to privately fund everything.

Anyone can go in. You just have to sign up. It's not particularly hard, outside some states like New York with their early registration deadline.

 

[B-Dubs]

Again that's fine. Just don't take public money.

As soon as your party takes public funding from the general public you lose out on this.

Just because you think this doesn't make it reality, try not to sound so much like that's how the rules actually are with your posts.

Also, it's not like the Dems make it hard to register with them. Go to a random state party website, or even the national Dem website, and they'll literally walk you through the process for free.

Anyone can go in. You just have to sign up. It's not particularly hard, outside some states like New York with their early registration deadline.

The army deadline was only for people changing registration. If you were a first time voter or moving you had til the end of March. The reason it's done like that is actually to protect the GOP process. If you take one look at the voter rolls it'll make sense.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

cant wait for this to be over with so Bernie and his diehards can all crawl back to irrelevancy like they should have done months ago

They'll just latch on to whatever anti-establishment blowhard comes next.

This shit will never end.

 

[Vanillalite]

Your position is fine, I guess, but it's not the democratically accepted one in America! Most people are totally fine with closed primaries receiving public funds. Maybe go advocate for change.

Actually my state doesn't have this problem.

They use public funds and the public setup. It's the same spot, same booths, mostly the same election people ect... for primaries as the general.

When you go in you fill out your voter form and check a box for which ballet you want ie say dem or rep for primaries.

So it's ALREADY a reality where I vote.

 

[brainchild]

Let me first preface this post by saying that I do not condone the egregious and violent acts of the Bernie extremists who were clearly over the line with their behavior with regard to their harassment and intimidation toward state officials (most of this took place after the convention). They should be held responsible for their actions under the fullest extent of the law. I should also state that I would be totally fine with a change of rules during the convention to allow the delegate count to reflect the popular vote of the original caucus, so long as that decision is made by at least a 2/3's majority of the body (per the original rules for temporary changes). Considering how shitty the caucus process is, a change to reflect the popular vote seems totally fair and appropriate to me.

Having said that, the complaints brought forth by the NSDP are nearly a complete fabrication of the events that took place DURING the convention (what happened after the convention is a different story). The convention was documented in its entirety with the corroboration of multiple eye witnesses through the use of periscope, and at no point did any group of people press against the dais. After all, the dais was laden with security detail for the majority of the event. Furthermore, while there were vulgarities and obscenities thrown out from time to time, it did not remotely reflect the general conduct at the convention for most of the duration of the meeting. I've personally reviewed hours of recordings of the convention, spanning from its commencement to its conclusion, and I can say that most of what the NSDP has asserted in that letter is patently false, and nearly anyone who was present at the event or watching it on periscope would agree with me. Even Hillary supporters present at the convention can attest to this.

Now, here's a clear, concise video revealing what ACTUALLY happened:

https://youtu.be/LmWt4aCTRG0

Here's a timeline of what happened:

Apparently from the periscope, they modified the rules while tons of Bernie supporters were still checking in. Then, on top of that, they modified it using a 'voice' yea or nay vote, when based on the noise on the video, the Sanders' supporters were louder and they ruled against them.

Then, afterwards, with that, the rules changed so that the chairman can do basically whatever they want based on that vote? I think that, from what I can gather, is what happened.

edit: also, apparently the chair as of 8:09 pm eastern is NOT giving the microphone to any Bernie supporter. She is holding onto the microphone and stage hostage according to the periscope feed (not sure if I can link it). She is not letting any motion come up to remove the chairman either, nor any motion.

edit #2: At 8:15 Eastern, they're thinking about trying to get a petition written (20% needed) to allow a motion to remove the chairman. So, they're trying to get a petition written and signed by ~700 people very quickly (and that's a maybe...).

edit #3: At 9:15 Eastern time, they're reading the minority report right now that challenges the commission's report. They're shouting recount, recount, recount, recount, recount.

edit #4: At 9:20 Eastern, they're splitting off to the individual rooms. They will reconvene in the larger room later to try to push for a motion for recount, no confidence, change in chairman, etc. They are not letting a Sanders supporter hold the microphone, except for the single instance of reading the minority report that cried foul. 60+ Sanders delegates were disenfranchised, and likely, the count is off (by a lot). That is why they're trying to push for a recount.

Edit #5: This is the moment when A) they ignored Bernie supporters' call for a recount and B) they called a voice yea or nay vote on the change of rules and C) Bernie voters can be heard far louder than Clinton supporters, thus the vote should not have been passed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0&feature=youtu.be

Edit #6: At 11:05 Eastern, everyone is still split off in different rooms doing national delegate stuff. They haven't returned to the big room yet which is where the Sanders' supporters should be able to motion for no confidence, change of chairman, change of rules, petition for those 60+ Sanders' delegates that were excluded, and recount of delegates.

Edit #7: At 11:48 Eastern, nearly everyone is now in the main room. The periscope stream has 3400 viewers (was up to 5800 at one point). Everyone is just waiting for it to start and try to pass the relevant motions.

Edit #8: At 12:08 Eastern, they're voting to ratify the national electorates, as appointed by the chairman. The yea's have it. They're getting the microphones for the platforms. They're in a hurry 'to go home after a long day.'

Edit #9: At 12:16 Eastern. there are only 53 out of 64 disenfranchised Sanders' delegates left outside the room. There is a large argument over the planks of the platform (mostly over the superdelegates atm). They're calling for a vote to eliminate the superdelegates from the NV platform.

Edit #10: At 12:19 Eastern, a motion has been called to accept or reject the platform. Also, a motion happened to remove the chairman. The motion to remove the chairman was ignored, but a vote on the platform was held. The platform vote did not pass. Thus, the platform is being voted on a section-by-section basis.

Edit #11: At 12:29 Eastern, they're not doing a good job of scrolling the platform sections on the big screen so some of the voting is entirely blind and still 100% by voice.

Important: The "government and election" section of the platform has been stricken from the platform (Sanders supporters' shouts outweighed Clinton supporters' shouts). All other sections thus far have been passed (some barely, some easily).

Edit #12: At 12:49 Eastern, a motion to remove the chairman was on the floor, according to @qwestie. The periscope feed has been down for ~20 minutes.

Edit #13: At 1:04 Eastern, according to @mikepfarr, the section that included "opposing privatization of service" was also voted down. Also, the Periscope feed is now back up. Sanders' supporters are being told to stay.

Edit #14: At 1:13 Eastern, (according to the periscope commentary) Nina Turner has shown up with lawyers and they are in the process of a complete delegate headcount. Also, pizza is outside the room with police (#food).

Edit #15: At 1:21 Eastern, they're just letting candidates come up and pitch their platform and story. Nothing interesting is happening, yet. Sanders' delegates are trying to get a motion to remove the chairman but are being stonewalled. Food (pizza) has arrived. We did it Reddit!

Edit #16: At 1:27 Eastern, someone at podium motioned for recount. Chants of Recount Recount Recount are everywhere.

IMPORTANT: Edit #17: At 1:35 Eastern, the chairman just came up to the microphone, put the motion up to a vote (or something), did not allow a proper vote, counted the motion as voted down while not even allowing the Sanders' voters to say anything, and said the convention was concluded even though A) nobody knows if they're a national delegate for the national convention B) motions were on the floor C) multiple agenda items were not completed. Sanders' supporters are going nuts. They are shouting "There is a motion on the floor, There is a motion on the floor."

Edit #18: At 1:38 Eastern, according to the Periscope, Sanders' supporters are now being arrested.

Edit #19: At 1:40 Eastern, Sanders' supporters are not leaving.

Edit #20: At 1:51 Eastern, Sanders' supporters are not doing a sit-in. They are leaving the room. They are not happy.

Edit #21: 1:56 Eastern: Sanders' protesters are outside somewhere supposedly.

/Important

SPECIAL EDIT 2:30 Eastern: Basically, at the end of the day, the chairwoman committed electoral fraud by fraudulently not allowing a fair vote for the recount.

"Multiple motions on floor ignored while Chair made new motion to accept and was 2nd. Nays never spoke when accepted.#nvdemconvention" -tweet from @qwestie

I listened to the entire proceeding and watched it from periscope , and it happened exactly like what @qwestie tweeted. The Sanders delegates wanted normal rules back (not changed) and a simple recount. They were never allowed either one.

Instead of honestly allowing a motion for a recount, the chairman slammed her gavel down .01 seconds after asking for nays. Given that there was no time to even react by the Sanders' side in those .01 seconds, the chairman said, "passed." She then concluded the convention and walked off the stage. Never before have I seen such dishonesty.

The chairman acted in incredibly fraudulent ways: changing the rules in a strange way when Sanders' supporters were still checking in, not allowing all the Sanders' delegates to take part (64 delegates were disenfranchised), not allowing Sanders' supporters to offer up motions, passing unilateral motions by voice only with only the chairman having the power to make the call of who won the voice vote, calling up security to secure the stage and microphone preventing Sanders' supporters from asking for a motion, continuously ignoring motions and stonewalling, and the most egregious was simply shutting down the convention so as not to have to recount after a motion was passed and then fraudulently ignored.

Everything is on tape from a guy's periscope video feed:https://www.periscope.tv/_luvlei_zaynah/1OyKAnmXrkaGb @11:35 <--- this one is the best one (wait a few secs). and https://www.periscope.tv/FenyxFX/1y....com/lescamoufleurs/status/731730749158768641

Essentially the moment for Bernie supporters to vote on the motion was .001 seconds. They were disenfranchised in their own party's state convention. They had been trying to kick the chairman out ever since the new rules were shoved down their throats unexpectedly. They were trying to do a simple recount and re-instate the Robert's Rules (the normal rules). Also, no one knows who the national delegates are that will be going to the national convention. In addition, the 64 Sanders' delegates who were not let in were never let in. They were not allowed to petition or have a hearing. A minority report that was barely allowed to be read in front of everyone said as much.

The relevant hashtags to search for tweets are: #nvdemconvention #freethe64 #teambernienv

PROTEST time is scheduled @10: "Protest of #nvdemconvention forming at Nevada DNC 10 am. Call 772-889-2798 with complaints. #TeamBernieNV" -tweet from @antisocialista

https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...ada_democratic_convention_mega_thread/d36591z

The main issue here isn't that a recount wasn't conducted, or that Bernie supporters didn't get their way; Hillary should have won, plain and simple. The issue here is a complete violation of state party rules:

- Meeting was convened before scheduled time and rules were changed before a representative majority could even be assembled (this would be like accepting election results before the polls closed)

- Minority report that challenged the commission's report was not investigated before final decisions were made

- Points of Order went completely unacknowledged

- Motions were left on the floor at the conclusion of the convention

Anyone who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows that the points above are clear violations of procedure, which would be fine if the NSDP rules were some kind of exception, but they're not.

All current evidence points to misconduct on behalf of both the NSDP and Sanders supporters. This is not even remotely one-sided and anyone suggesting as much is using logic that quite literally flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[n00bsauce87]

Actually they owe everyone considering both parties make use of public funds and public election setups.

That's been the crux of this for years.

I'm fine with both parties having 100% closed primaries so long as they don't make use of public funds or setups.

No, not everyone because then what you are saying is the DNC owes something to registered republican voters to vote in their primaries as well.

Both RNC and DNC funding are all fund-raised not through government funding. So that argument doesn't hold water unless you are going to go on a limb and say Republicans and Independent donors gave at a high enough percentage that it held sway for the decision makers of the DNC

No and it would be stupid for the DNC to do that. It would be nice to have it uniform in every state, but that's simply not the case. It's fine as it is. Who truly is at fault is Bernie not getting his state teams to inform independent voters to switch so they can vote for him. He wasn't helping his cause and complain about rules that was already set was pointless.

 

[sturgboski]

Man the ardent Bernie supporters seem to hew to the same practices as the ardent Trump supporters. And, much like Trump, I don't see Bernie admonishing these folks, more so retorting about the excitement he is generating (again very Trumpian). What an awful year of politics.

 

[Vanillalite]

No, not everyone because then what you are saying is the DNC owes something to registered republican voters to vote in their primaries as well.

Both RNC and DNC funding are all fund-raised not through government funding. So that argument doesn't hold water unless you are going to go on a limb and say Republicans and Independent donors gave at a high enough percentage that it held sway for the decision makers of the DNC

No and it would be stupid for the DNC to do that. It would be nice to have it uniform in every state, but that's simply not the case. It's fine as it is. Who truly is at fault is Bernie not getting his state teams to inform independent voters to switch so they can vote for him. He wasn't helping his cause and complain about rules that was already set was pointless.

Both the DNC and RNC use public funds.

Are you arguing otherwise?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

the army deadline was only for people changing registration. If you were a first time voter or moving you had til the end of March. The reason it's done like that is actually to protect the GOP process. If you take one look at the voter rolls it'll make sense.

Yeah, I totally understand why the primary in New York is closed. Otherwise, Democrats could pick both candidates. I actually didn't know there were two separate deadlines though. That's cool.

 

[n00bsauce87]

Both the DNC and RNC use public funds.

Are you arguing otherwise?

The only argument is what you mean by public funding because there's more than one meaning.

Taxes paid by us citizens

or

donations from us citizens

Depending on the answer gives a different meaning to "public funding".

You are getting into non-profit laws now. Just because it maybe morally right to use "donations" for a certain purpose doesn't mean they have to, which is to include making every state an open primary. But it's not illegal.

Here is the answer you are afraid to hear, Those who contribute more to the DNC have better access to the decision makers and has a better chance to influence them.

This is, in part, how you get a state with a closed primary.

 

[CharminUltra]

Pathetic. Luckily we only have three more weeks of this.