Support NeoGAF

[Dash_Riprock]

According to Reddit

Um.

Reddit

There's your first problem with your source.

 

[harSon]

Oh shit, what

guess I have to take surface streets tomorrow

this is the final indignity

I work right off of Tully D:

And I do a lot of driving during work hours.......

 

[studyguy]

Sanders losing thread got shut down.

It's still going to go as I mentioned, the man will pay some lip service to stopping Trump without actually saying he supports Hillary then off he disappears to Vermont. There's no riding with democrats here, his own fringe constituents would eat him alive and drown out any reasonable dems who leaned his way as turncoats.

 

[Black Mamba]

Oh shit, what

guess I have to take surface streets tomorrow

this is the final indignity

Oh please. Do you know how often Obama/Biden/Kerry/Hillary affect traffic in Los Angeles??? Oh poor you, once a year. Try once a week!

 

[Tranqueris]

I told a phonebanker I was voting for Hillary and he told me to fuck off.

Fuck this fucking primary.

Looks like my strategy of ignoring these damn "unknown" calls I've been getting multiple times every day AND night (got one at 2 am once) since April is definitely paying off.

 

[Wilsongt]

Um.



There's your first problem with your source.

Of course. I was just making the point that the delusion is strong over there.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh please. Do you know how often Obama/Biden/Kerry/Hillary affect traffic in Los Angeles??? Oh poor you, once a year. Try once a week!

Man, we hardly even notice when Obama comes to town anymore. At first it was always all over the news and shit, now it's all "Oh, btw Obama's here so watch that commute on the East Side."

 

[studyguy]

Oh please. Do you know how often Obama/Biden/Kerry/Hillary affect traffic in Los Angeles??? Oh poor you, once a year. Try once a week!

I feel this

 

[pigeon]

Oh please. Do you know how often Obama/Biden/Kerry/Hillary affect traffic in Los Angeles??? Oh poor you, once a year. Try once a week!

How would you even be able to tell in Los Angeles

my understanding of Los Angeles is that it's just one permanent traffic jam and whoever's nearest the light gets elected Mayor until it changes and they can go

 

[brainchild]

Where are you getting that from? My understanding of RRoO is that the chair must approve of any motion before it is allowed on the floor. The 20% alone outlined in the Nevada convention rules isn't enough to bring a motion to a vote.

An appeal is a special motion with its own exemption of rules

21. Questions of Order and Appeal. A Question of Order takes precedence of the pending question out of which it arises; is in order when another has the floor, even interrupting a speech or the reading of a report; does not require a second; cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it; yields to privileged motions and the motion to lay on the table; and must be decided by the presiding officer without debate, unless in doubtful cases he submits the question to the assembly for decision, in which case it is debatable whenever an appeal would be. Before rendering his decision he may request the advice of persons of experience, which advice or opinion should usually be given sitting to avoid the appearance of debate. If the chair is still in doubt, he may submit the question to the assembly for its decision in a manner similar to this: "Mr. A raises the point of order that the amendment just offered [state the amendment] is not germane to the resolution. The chair is in doubt, and submits the question to the assembly. The question is, 'Is the amendment germane to the resolution?"' As no appeal can be taken from the decision of the assembly, this question is open to debate whenever an appeal would be, if the chair decided the question and an appeal were made from that decision. Therefore, it is debatable except when it relates to indecorum, or transgression of the rules of speaking, or to the priority of business, or when it is made during a division of the assembly, or while an undebatable question is pending. The question is put thus: "As many as are of opinion that the amendment is germane [or that the point is well taken] say aye; as many as are of a contrary opinion say no. The ayes have it, the amendment is in order, and the question is on its adoption." If the negative vote is the larger it would be announced thus: "The noes have it, the amendment is out of order, and the question is on the adoption of the resolution." Whenever the presiding officer decides a question of order, he has the right, without leaving his chair, to state the reasons for his decision, and any two members have the right to appeal from the decision, one making the appeal and the other seconding it.

It is the duty of the presiding officer to enforce the rules and orders of the assembly, without debate or delay. It is also the right of every member who notices the breach of a rule, to insist upon its enforcement. In such a case he rises from his seat and says. "Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order." The speaker immediately takes his seat, and the chairman requests the member to state his point of order, which he does and resumes his seat. The chair decides the point, and then, if no appeal is taken and the member has not been guilty of any serious breach of decorum, the chair permits him to resume his speech. But, if his remarks are decided to be improper and any one objects, he cannot continue without a vote of the assembly to that effect. [See 43 for a full treatment of this subject of indecorum in debate]. The question of order must be raised at the time the breach of order occurs, so that after a motion has been discussed it is too late to raise the question as to whether it was in order, or for the chair to rule the motion out of order. The only exception is where the motion is in violation of the laws, or the constitution, by-laws, or standing rules of the organization, or of fundamental parliamentary principles, so that if adopted it would be null and void. In such cases it is never too late to raise a point of order against the motion. This is called raising a question, or point, of order, because the member in effect puts to the chair, whose duty it is to enforce order, the question as to whether there is not now a breach of order.

Instead of the method just described, it is usual, when it is simply a case of improper language used in debate, for the chair to call the speaker to order, or for a member to say, "I call the gentleman to order." The chairman decides whether the speaker is in or out of order, and proceeds as before.

Appeal. An appeal may be made from any decision of the chair (except when another appeal is pending), but it can be made only at the time the ruling is made. It is in order while another member has the floor. If any debate or business has intervened it is too late to appeal. An answer to a parliamentary inquiry is not a decision, and therefore cannot be appealed from. While an appeal is pending a question of order may be raised, which the chair decides peremptorily, there being no appeal from this decision. But the question as to the correctness of the ruling can be brought up afterwards when no other business is pending. An appeal yields to privileged motions, and to the motion to lay on the table. The effect of subsidiary motions is as follows: An appeal cannot be amended. If the decision from which an appeal is taken is of such a nature that the reversal of the ruling would not in any way affect the consideration of, or action on, the main question, then the main question does not adhere to the appeal, and its consideration is resumed as soon as the appeal is laid on the table, postponed, etc. But if the ruling affects the consideration of, or action on, the main question, then the main question adheres to the appeal, and when the latter is laid on the table, or postponed, the main question goes with it. Thus, if the appeal is from the decision that a proposed amendment is out of order and the appeal is laid on the table, it would be absurd to come to final action on the main question and then afterwards reverse the decision of the chair and take up the amendment when there was no question to amend. The vote on an appeal may be reconsidered.

An appeal cannot be debated when it relates simply to indecorum, or to transgression of the rules of speaking, or to the priority of business, or if made during a division of the assembly, or while the immediately pending question is undebatable. When debatable, as it is in all other cases, no member is allowed to speak more than once except the presiding officer, who may at the close of the debate answer the arguments against the decision. Whether debatable or not, the chairman when stating the question on the appeal may, without leaving the chair, state the reasons for his decision.

When a member wishes to appeal from the decision of the chair he rises as soon a the decision is made, even though another has the floor, and without waiting to be recognized by the chair, says, "Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the chair." If this appeal is seconded, the chair should state clearly the question at issue, and his reasons for the decision if he thinks it necessary, and then state the question thus: "The question is, 'Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly [or society, or club, etc.]?'" or, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" To put the question he would say, "Those in the affirmative say aye," and after the affirmative vote has been taken he would say, "Those in the negative say no. The ayes have it and the decision of the chair is sustained [or stands as the judgment of the assembly]." Or, "The noes have it and the decision of the chair is reversed." In either case he immediately announces what is before the assembly as the result of the vote. If there is a tie vote the chair is sustained, and if the chair is a member of the assembly he may vote to make it a tie, on the principle that the decision of the chair stands until reversed by a majority, including the chairman if he is a member of the assembly. In stating the question, the word "assembly" should be replaced by "Society," or "club," or "board," etc., as the case may be. The announcement of a vote is not a decision of the chair. If a member doubts the correctness of the announcement he cannot appeal, but should call for a "Division" [25] .

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-04.htm


Both a Point of Order and Appeal to the ruling of the chair were motioned. Neither were acknowledged by the chair.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Hey y'all found a place you can move to if Trump becomes president: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...-saranda/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8a&linkId=24591166

The Clintons are incredibly popular in Albania.

 

[eBay Huckster]

hell yeah let's get bogged down in a multi-page argument about parliamentary procedure

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I've been wondering ever since the Nevada Dem memo that said that the Sanders people came looking for a fight, whether or not Sanders' talk about a "contested convention" meant that he actually wants to incite riots, and that his "revolution" is a little less metaphorical than we've all assumed.

I can't think of any other reason he's staying in, unless he really wants to burn it all down.

The walking-away response fits with this.

If so, fuck him. This wouldn't be the "Tea Party of the Left" it would be way worse.

 

[Black Mamba]

Man, we hardly even notice when Obama comes to town anymore. At first it was always all over the news and shit, now it's all "Oh, btw Obama's here so watch that commute on the East Side."

Subway Snob. Eat it!

How would you even be able to tell in Los Angeles

my understanding of Los Angeles is that it's just one permanent traffic jam and whoever's nearest the light gets elected Mayor until it changes and they can go

Because they CLOSE streets off. But the rest is true.

 

[B-Dubs]

I've been wondering ever since the Nevada Dem memo that said that the Sanders people came looking for a fight, whether or not Sanders' talk about a "contested convention" meant that he actually wants to incite riots, and that his "revolution" is a little less metaphorical than we've all assumed.

I can't think of any other reason he's staying in, unless he really wants to burn it all down.

The walking-away response fits with this.

If so, fuck him. This wouldn't be the "Tea Party of the Left" it would be way worse.

Oh lord, I swear to god if this is the way he's going...

Subway Snob. Eat it!

Not my fault we have a working public transit system and you don't

 

[studyguy]

I've been wondering ever since the Nevada Dem memo that said that the Sanders people came looking for a fight, whether or not Sanders' talk about a "contested convention" meant that he actually wants to incite riots, and that his "revolution" is a little less metaphorical than we've all assumed.

I can't think of any other reason he's staying in, unless he really wants to burn it all down.

The walking-away response fits with this.

If so, fuck him. This wouldn't be the "Tea Party of the Left" it would be way worse.

Until you can punch people from across a computer screen, it's still a far cry from an actual violent overthrow. Nah. Most of it is real mundane with fringe being the weirdos we keep generalizing as Sanders fans as whole.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump put his tact to a test during an interview with The Washington Post here Monday afternoon. Unprompted, he delivered a five-minute soliloquy attempting to explain himself for making wild arm and hand gestures at a rally last November to discredit New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski. The act was widely seen as mocking the journalist’s physical disability and has been featured in numerous ads and videos designed to savage Trump.

“I would never say anything bad about a person that has a disability,” Trump said, leaning forward at his office desk. “I swear to you it’s true, 100 percent true.. . .Who would do that to [the] handicapped? I’ve spent a lot of money making buildings accessible.”

Trump then satirically reenacted the scene, his arms jerking all around, and said he was trying to show “a guy who grovels — ‘Oh, oh, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that.’ That was the imitation I was doing.”

“Now,” he concluded, “is that a believable story?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2225da-1c37-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

Trump is an, uhh, fascinating individual....

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Until you can punch people from across a computer screen, it's still a far cry from an actual violent overthrow. Nah. Most of it is real mundane with fringe being the weirdos we keep generalizing as Sanders fans as whole.

I'm not generalizing the average Sanders fan-- I know plenty who are enthusiastic and unrealistic and would never do these things. But I do wonder if Sanders himself *wants* to incite more incidents.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Sanders losing thread got shut down.

It's still going to go as I mentioned, the man will pay some lip service to stopping Trump without actually saying he supports Hillary then off he disappears to Vermont. There's no riding with democrats here, his own fringe constituents would eat him alive and drown out any reasonable dems who leaned his way as turncoats.

ModBot said I have nothing to say! D:

 

[Retromelon]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

 

[Beer Monkey]

Sanders' "drop out before June" shares just woke up on PredictIt.

 

[User 85168]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

pretty fitting for this thread, i think

 

[B-Dubs]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

Thank you for that, now I can't unsee it! :lol

 

[Black Mamba]

Not my fault we have a working public transit system and you don't

Yeah well, we have beaches and the weather for it year round so take that!




It's too bad the more progressive side of the party didn't get a better spokesman this election than Bernie.

 

[mo60]

Europe's seeing these types of candidates all over the place.

The US's changing demographics are what's preventing one from winning here.

It's also near impossible for a candidate like donald to win in Canada especially in the current political climate.

 

[studyguy]

I assume fenderputty's actually vin scully from most of his replies for some reason. Or at least someone who generally looks like a vin scully type.

 

[Macho Madness]

I ALWAYS THINK HE'S HOLDING A BANANA

 

[Bronx-Man]

Yep. I imagine this will be the new normal going forward.

 

[eBay Huckster]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

good so i'm not the only one always thinking that

 

[whyamihere]

Both sides have populist insurgents backed primarily by white voters trying to hijack the nomination.

One succeeded, one didn't.

oh shiiiiit

 

[Zornack]

An appeal is a special motion with its own exemption of rules



http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-04.htm


Both a Point of Order and Appeal to the ruling of the chair were motioned. Neither were acknowledged by the chair.

Wouldn't the result be identical to what happened given the 50/50 split between Clinton and Sanders supporters and the Chair having final judgement in the voice vote?

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeah well, we have beaches and the weather for it year round so take that!

We have beaches and they're awesome...when it's warm enough to use them

Right there with you buddy, right there with you.

 

[User1608]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

Lmao

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

We have beaches and they're awesome...when it's warm enough to use them



Right there with you buddy, right there with you.

Jones Beach is barley tolerable when it's warm out, and even then the water is fucking cold.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Wouldn't the result be identical to what happened given the 50/50 split between Clinton and Sanders supporters and the Chair having final judgement in the voice vote?

so what you're saying is they could've done what they did or they could've Joe Biden'd it and the effective result would've been the same?

 

[Iolo]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

 

[Tubie]

I had my 30th birthday this past weekend and i wanted a pinata so i made a trump one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s1JoR-pW8Q

It was a good day.

That's really cool man, happy birthday!

 

[Zornack]

If you can point out anything factually wrong in the following Breitbart quote I will be very impressed, but I won't be holding my breath :

What was the voice vote on, specifically?

 

[brainchild]

Of course it's defensible. The correct amount of delegates was allocated according to the vote, and no one was harmed by the process.

Okay, 'indefensible' is probably a bit hyperbole. However, I find the arguments in defense of the NSDP's conduct to be tenuous at best.

If that's what you consider reasonable, there is no having a discussion with you. Holy shit.
I'm out for the rest of the day until election results this evening.

"On Saturday, Sanders backers shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton's favor. Protesters shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings"

This is ok according to Brainchild. Will wonders ever cease?

what do you think about this AP article?

http://elections.ap.org/content/nevada-democrats-sanders-campaign-has-violent-streak

<LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada's Democratic party on Monday warned the Democratic National Committee that Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters have a penchant for violence and may seek to disrupt the party's national convention in July, as they did during the Nevada convention Saturday.

The allegation is the latest fallout from a divisive Nevada Democratic convention that had to be shut down because security at the Paris Las Vegas hotel could no longer ensure order on Saturday night. The gathering closed with some Sanders supporters throwing chairs; later, some made death threats against state party chairwoman Roberta Lange.

Sanders' backers had been protesting convention rules that ultimately led to Hillary Clinton winning more pledged delegates. Clinton won the state's caucuses in February, 53-47, but Sanders backers hoped to pick up extra delegates by packing county and state party gatherings.

Sanders had released a statement Friday night asking supporters to work "together respectfully and constructively" at the convention. But the state party alleged in its letter to the co-chairs of the DNC Rules and By-laws committee, "The explosive situation arose in large part because a portion of the community of Sanders delegates arrived at the Nevada Democratic State Convention believing itself to be a vanguard intent upon sparking a street-fight rather than attending an orderly political party process."

Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesman, said, "We do not condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." He added that the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about. We have a First Amendment and respect the rights of the people to make their voices heard."

On Saturday, Sanders backers shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton's favor. Protesters shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings. The letter by the state party's general counsel, Bradley S. Schrager, warns that similarly chaotic scenes could unfold in Philadelphia, site of the Democratic National Committee's July convention.

"We believe, unfortunately, that the tactics and behavior on display here in Nevada are harbingers of things to come as Democrats gather in Philadelphia in July for our National Convention," Schrager wrote. "We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sanders campaign's penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats."

Several Sanders backers have condemned some of the threats against Lange and other actions Saturday. Former state assemblywoman Lucy Flores, a current congressional candidate, said in a statement: "There were actions over the weekend and at the Democratic convention that very clearly crossed the line. Progressives need to speak out against those: Making threats against someone's life, defacing private property, and hurling vulgar language at our female leaders."

State party offices remained closed Monday for security reasons after Sanders supporters posted Lange's home and business addresses, email and cell phone number online. Copies of angry and threatening texts to Lange were included with the letter.

Lange said she'd been receiving hundreds of profanity-laced calls and texts from inside and outside of the U.S., threatening her life and her family. Lange said the restaurant where she works has received so many calls it had to unplug the phone.

"It is endless, and the longer it goes the worse it gets," Lange said in an interview. "I feel threatened everywhere I go.">

that is the definition of acting like children. it is indefensible behavior and your recent posts in this topic are disgusting as far as giving validity to their actions

Based on all available evidence, and what I've personally seen of several hours on periscope, I find the account to be misrepresentative of what actually happened. Yes, obscenities were stated, but only by a small fraction of the delegates in that meeting, and there was absolutely no rushing of the dais, throwing of chairs, or any kind of physical violence whatsoever.

What's really amazing is that I've done due diligence and actually watched hours upon hours of footage, while many people taking these reports as gospel haven't so much as taken a cursory glance at the actual evidence.

 

[studyguy]

I like beaches, if the Pacific wasn't a literal ice bath then I might be inclined to step into it more often without fear of freezing my dick off.

 

[pigeon]

unrelated but whenever i see pidgeys avy it looks like paul ryan's fantasizing about cupping a man's undercarriage in his palm and thinking, "must..control..urges"

As far as I know, this is true.

 

[pigeon]

I like beaches, if the Pacific wasn't a literal ice bath then I might be inclined to step into it more often without fear of freezing my dick off.

You're really going to hate the Atlantic.

 

[brainchild]

Wouldn't the result be identical to what happened given the 50/50 split between Clinton and Sanders supporters and the Chair having final judgement in the voice vote?

Actually, I'd be fine with Hillary winning the state flat out according to the popular vote. The actual results aren't the problem. It's the conduct of the state party that I take issue with.

 

[eBay Huckster]

so basically, gimme a primary

 

[brainchild]

so basically, gimme a primary

For sure.

 

[Zornack]

Okay, 'indefensible' is probably a bit hyperbole. However, I find the arguments in defense of the NSDP's conduct to be tenuous at best.





Based on all available evidence, and what I've personally seen of several hours on periscope, I find the account to be misrepresentative of what actually happened. Yes, obscenities were stated, but only by a small fraction of the delegates in that meeting, and there was absolutely no rushing of the dais, throwing of chairs, or any kind of physical violence whatsoever.

What's really amazing is that I've done due diligence and actually watched hours upon hours of footage, while many people taking these reports as gospel haven't so much as taken a cursory glance at the actual evidence.

But aren't there hours and hours of footage that you have not watched? There are reports and accounts of violence which you have disregarded as untrue based on your incomplete viewing of the proceedings.

 

[studyguy]

You're really going to hate the Atlantic.

I'd probably never see the east coast ever.
Are there any snowy mountains near the coast? I might be inclined to travel to snowboard but that'd be it.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

What's really amazing is that I've done due diligence and actually watched hours upon hours of footage, while many people taking these reports as gospel haven't so much as taken a cursory glance at the actual evidence.

This is approaching "binders full of women" level of hilarity.

 

[gutter_trash]

You're really going to hate the Atlantic.

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: the water is warm

 

[eBay Huckster]

on a side note, i can't say how happy i am that this week's "day before primary surprise" was 100% on sanders and not clinton for once