Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

But if you agree that the issue is that Sanders shouldn't have one then, again, the response seems disproportionate to what was "actually at stake"

Sure. I agree with that...

Strawman??
Harassment and name-calling cursewords at people is generally if not always unacceptable...
My argument has never ever been that the response was appropriate!

 

[pigeon]

If you can't tell which group is larger based on a voice vote, you're not supposed to make a wild guess and assume a smaller group was simply louder (if you knew group sizes and how they'd vote, you wouldn't need to take the vote in the first place).

This strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of how parliamentary assemblies are actually run. The first rule for every chair, from the lowly leader of a Nevada caucus to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is that you never call a vote if you don't know the outcome in advance.

You can actually see this process play out if you go back and read the original r/s4p post that brainchild posted way back when. Right in the middle there's a point where the liveblog goes "okay, now nothing is happening, the chair is taking a headcount of delegates, and they're just letting random people speak, not sure why."

I didn't get it before, but I perceive now that this is the chair getting a whip count -- sending somebody around to talk to every Hillary delegate and make sure they're in the room and ready to vote, tell them what the vote is, and clarify which side Hillary's camp wants them to vote on. Meanwhile they stall on the floor by giving random people speaking time.

Once the chair is confident from the reports from the whips that there are enough yea votes to make a majority and push the vote through, she'll call the vote. But not before. The only thing you're looking for in the vote is making sure that all the people who told you they'd vote yea are actually voting yea, because if they are, you know the vote passed.

That is how you can know from a voice vote who won even if one side is clearly yelling louder deliberately.

I understand that this will probably not sound less sketchy to those of you invested in finding sketchiness here. But it is how these votes actually run! And I'll observe that the Bernie camp did much the same thing, just a little less organized.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Okay, angry young men and women engaged in aggression and harassment. Glad we got that all cleared up. That's obviously the important takeaway. That there were women also texting and calling the convention chair and saying she should be hanged and making "implications" nothing more about her grandchildren.

Over two delegates to try and cut a lead of about 300 in a contest that's been essentially over for weeks.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Bah, I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread to argue rules when my original position is still pretty much unchanged: Who cares about rules if the correct result happened in the end, and no one was hurt by the process? It seems to me that we only really have rules in order to ensure those two goals were met, and those two goals were met, so whether or not rules were broken or followed or fudged is just a boring question. But for some reason I can't stop myself.

 

[JP_]

This strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of how parliamentary assemblies are actually run. The first rule for every chair, from the lowly leader of a Nevada caucus to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is that you never call a vote if you don't know the outcome in advance.

You can actually see this process play out if you go back and read the original r/s4p post that brainchild posted way back when. Right in the middle there's a point where the liveblog goes "okay, now nothing is happening, the chair is taking a headcount of delegates, and they're just letting random people speak, not sure why."

I didn't get it before, but I perceive now that this is the chair getting a whip count -- sending somebody around to talk to every Hillary delegate and make sure they're in the room and ready to vote, tell them what the vote is, and clarify which side Hillary's camp wants them to vote on. Meanwhile they stall on the floor by giving random people speaking time.

Once the chair is confident from the reports from the whips that there are enough yea votes to make a majority and push the vote through, she'll call the vote. But not before. The only thing you're looking for in the vote is making sure that all the people who told you they'd vote yea are actually voting yea, because if they are, you know the vote passed.

That is how you can know from a voice vote who won even if one side is clearly yelling louder deliberately.

I understand that this will probably not sound less sketchy to those of you invested in finding sketchiness here. But it is how these votes actually run! And I'll observe that the Bernie camp did much the same thing, just a little less organized.

I don't think you have the right understanding. Never calling a vote if you don't know the outcome in advance is a strategic move, not a procedural standard.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume these primary conventions are organized like the house chambers. And you're suggesting that the rising vote provision is redundant because the results would never be unclear. As far as I'm aware, even in congress/senate they don't rely on voice votes when it's close -- they use recorded votes and roll call votes when it's close. Voice votes are reserved for near unanimous votes.

 

[Maledict]

I don't think you have the right understanding. Never calling a vote if you don't know the outcome in advance is a strategic move, not a procedural standard.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume these primary conventions are organized like the house chambers. And you're suggesting that the rising vote provision is redundant because the results would never be unclear. As far as I'm aware, even in congress/senate they don't rely on voice votes when it's close -- they use recorded votes and roll call votes when it's close. Voice votes are reserved for near unanimous votes.

Voice votes are used for different reasons. In a convened parliamentary process, like the House of Commons in the UK, voice votes are used to quickly pass unanimous votes. If someone shouts loud enough in opposition, even if it's only a couple of people, the speaker will call for a full counted vote. (Which in the UK means they have really to walk through two different sets of doors, but such is tradition).

But that's not what they were being used for at the Nevada convention. Again, to repeat - they were being used to speed through the process because they knew the delegate counts and had to get a lot of business done. This is also standard practice - you voice vote stuff where you know the result because of the delegate count, and you only go to a full vote if the chair has reason to believe the voters wouldn't break along their party / group lines. Otherwise you simply run out of time and you don't get the business of the meeting done - it's been used as a form of filibustering, and voice votes are here to prevent that.

Everything done was within the rules, both in terms of the letter of the rules but also the spirit. The fact that Sander's fans were able to shout louder doesn't mean anything, and certainly doesn't mean the Chair should call for a roll-called vote (especially considering we know that the result would have been the same any ways!).

Ultimately, Clinton's delegates turned up, SAnders didn't. This is exactly the same as what happened at the county conventions, only Hillary supporters didn't scream and doxx people when their side screwed up, and Bernie supporters preened themselves about "flipping Nevada" (against the will of the voters in the actual caucus).

Sanders lost because his supporters didn't turn up. Nothing done on the day had any effect on that - Clinton simply had more delegates.

 

[JP_]

But that's not what they were being used for at the Nevada convention. Again, to repeat - they were being used to speed through the process because they knew the delegate counts and had to get a lot of business done. This is also standard practice - you voice vote stuff where you know the result because of the delegate count, and you only go to a full vote if the chair has reason to believe the voters wouldn't break along their party / group lines. Otherwise you simply run out of time and you don't get the business of the meeting done - it's been used as a form of filibustering, and voice votes are here to prevent that.

Everything done was within the rules, both in terms of the letter of the rules but also the spirit.

My understanding is that the first vote was done by ballot and it was to adopt the temporary rules. It was scheduled for 10:00am, but they held the vote 30 minutes early and there were still people registering, so they requested a revote, which resulted in the first voice vote where she states "The ruling by the chair is not debatable; we cannot be challenged and I move that the er... and I announce that the rules have passed by the body." Not exactly a smooth start.

That was a rules vote. Why use a ballot in the first place if they can simply assume the results based on the number of delegates?

edit:

Sanders lost because his supporters didn't turn up.

I've never challenged the results so I'm not sure why you guys keep acting like I'm just upset Sanders lost.

 

[Wilsongt]

https://twitter.com/jhfearless/status/731729730211303425

I think most people would find it hard to believe it was a clear vote.

Those comments...

Someone in the video calling the speaker a bitch...

Disgusting.

 

[Maledict]

I love the idea that because someone speaking in front of a crowd said "er" and stumbled it meant something was up. I'm not sure how much public speaking you've done, but even when you get paid to do it it's still intimidating and nerve wracking and you still say um, really and forget lines. For someone who is doing it as part of a party political process they aren't paid to do I'm positive it was a nerve wracking and intimidating thing.

That's before they tried throwing chairs and screaming insults.

 

[Zornack]

I've never challenged the results so I'm not sure why you guys keep acting like I'm just upset Sanders lost.

Then what are you arguing? On one side you have violence, death threats and doxxing and on the other you have the unsubstantiated musings that the proceedings were conducted in a way that, while improper, had no effect on the outcome.

Is this really a fight worth having?

 

[JP_]

I love the idea that because someone speaking in front of a crowd said "er" and stumbled it meant something was up. I'm not sure how much public speaking you've done, but even when you get paid to do it it's still intimidating and nerve wracking and you still say um, really and forget lines. For someone who is doing it as part of a party political process they aren't paid to do I'm positive it was a nerve wracking and intimidating thing.

I don't think the "er" is noteworthy -- was copy pasted.

That's before they tried throwing chairs and screaming insults.

Someone picked up a chair and other Sanders supporters took the chair away from him and hugged it out. The claims of "melee" and "violence" is mostly media hype. From all the videos I've seen, it was mostly loud protesting with some profanities and high tempers -- but no fighting etc.

 

[JP_]

Then what are you arguing? On one side you have violence, death threats and doxxing and on the other you have the unsubstantiated musings that the proceedings were conducted in a way that, while improper, had no effect on the outcome.

Is this really a fight worth having?

I've never defended the death threats etc. It's embarrassing for Sanders' side and it's embarrassing for the Nevada state party. Just because there's two sides doesn't mean there's good guys and bad guys -- both sides could have handled it better and I think it's unfortunate all around.

What's the point of trying to make it so binary? The actions of Nevada state party don't justify the reactions from Sanders' camp and the reactions of Sanders' camp don't justify the actions of the Nevada state party.

 

[Maledict]

Because it is binary.

Because when one side is doxxing and making death threats and harassment calls and trying to ruin someone's business, their aren't equal sides. They are the bad guys. It's as simple as that. You don't pass go, you don't collect $200.

The reason it's extra unpleasant is because they don't even have a reason to be such vicious, evil shits - they were wrong. Their candidate lost, fairly and squarely. Nothing was stolen or rigged. Hillary had more supporters on the day, so the results went in her favour - just like the original democratic process showed it should (which the Sander's supporters gleefully tried to reverse).

The people involved in this *should* be condemned as strongly as possible, by all sides. They are flatly in the wrong, and nothing justifies their behaviour. There are not two sides to this. There is one side, and it's fucking evil, small minded and despicable.

 

[JP_]

Because it is binary.

Because when one side is doxxing and making death threats and harassment calls and trying to ruin someone's business, their aren't equal sides. They are the bad guys. It's as simple as that. You don't pass go, you don't collect $200.

The reason it's extra unpleasant is because they don't even have a reason to be such vicious, evil shits - they were wrong. Their candidate lost, fairly and squarely. Nothing was stolen or rigged. Hillary had more supporters on the day, so the results went in her favour - just like the original democratic process showed it should (which the Sander's supporters gleefully tried to reverse).

The people involved in this *should* be condemned as strongly as possible, by all sides. They are flatly in the wrong, and nothing justifies their behaviour. There are not two sides to this. There is one side, and it's fucking wrong and evil.

When someone wrongs you, it doesn't give you free reign to wrong them in return no matter how it checks out on some petty balance sheet. I didn't say they were equal, I didn't make the "two sides" argument like you think I did, and I explicitly said it doesn't justify their behavior, so drop the strawman bullshit.

 

[Parshias7]

When someone wrongs you, it doesn't give you free reign to wrong them in return no matter how it checks out on some petty balance sheet. I didn't say they were equal and I explicitly said it doesn't justify their behavior, so drop the strawman bullshit.

Tell that to the Sanders supporters.

We are still talking "maybe mishearing a voice vote" vs. "DEATH THREATS" here, right?

 

[JP_]

Tell that to the Sanders supporters.

I did

I've never defended the death threats etc. It's embarrassing for Sanders' side and it's embarrassing for the Nevada state party. Just because there's two sides doesn't mean there's good guys and bad guys -- both sides could have handled it better and I think it's unfortunate all around.

What's the point of trying to make it so binary? The actions of Nevada state party don't justify the reactions from Sanders' camp and the reactions of Sanders' camp don't justify the actions of the Nevada state party.

I'm not even suggesting they're equally wrong. The death threats are on another level, I agree, but Sanders supporters sending death threats doesn't somehow retroactively justify any mishandlings of the state party.

 

[Maledict]

When someone wrongs you, it doesn't give you free reign to wrong them in return no matter how it checks out on some petty balance sheet. I didn't say they were equal, I didn't make the "two sides" argument like you think I did, and I explicitly said it doesn't justify their behavior, so drop the strawman bullshit.

If you don't think you are making that statement then you need to rewrite your previous post, because that is *exactly* what you are doing. You literally say

"The reactions of the Sanders camp don't justify the actions of the Nevada state party".

Maybe is a language thing, but you are not saying what you think you are saying. You are directly saying that there are two sides and there is equivalence here, and that whilst you don't like what the Sanders's camp did there is justification for it. The fact there death threats were made is not embarrassing for the Nevada state party! Saying "Both sides could have handled it better" is LITERALLY saying both sides are partly at fault.

 

[GhaleonEB]

When someone wrongs you, it doesn't give you free reign to wrong them in return no matter how it checks out on some petty balance sheet. I didn't say they were equal, I didn't make the "two sides" argument like you think I did, and I explicitly said it doesn't justify their behavior, so drop the strawman bullshit.

In fairness, it's awfully hard to read your prior post without thinking you are equivocating the two sides. It's a pretty straight forward, well one side is bad but other is too framing of the situation. When in reality, there is a clear, massive gap here, that you obfuscate with phrasings like this:

I've never defended the death threats etc. It's embarrassing for Sanders' side and it's embarrassing for the Nevada state party. Just because there's two sides doesn't mean there's good guys and bad guys -- both sides could have handled it better and I think it's unfortunate all around.

What's the point of trying to make it so binary? The actions of Nevada state party don't justify the reactions from Sanders' camp and the reactions of Sanders' camp don't justify the actions of the Nevada state party.

Sometimes, there are good guys and bad guys. Such as when one side is engaged in harassment and threats, and the other is not doing anything other than trying to go about their normal order of business.

 

[pigeon]

I don't think you have the right understanding. Never calling a vote if you don't know the outcome in advance is a strategic move, not a procedural standard.

Yeah, of course. I'm responding to your post saying "why would you call a vote if you know the outcome in advance?" The answer is that you're actually required to call votes in order to advance the state of the proceedings. But your implication that people typically call votes without knowing the outcome in advance is false. That is actually generally not how votes work.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume these primary conventions are organized like the house chambers. And you're suggesting that the rising vote provision is redundant because the results would never be unclear. As far as I'm aware, even in congress/senate they don't rely on voice votes when it's close -- they use recorded votes and roll call votes when it's close. Voice votes are reserved for near unanimous votes.

The US Congress doesn't have voice votes at all, just unanimous consent/acclamation.

Obviously it's necessary to have a system in case a vote goes in an unexpected way. But yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they didn't intend to have division votes. They intended to run the convention along delegate party lines and get things done. That is, in fact, what they did. I think it's a little problematic to assert both a right to regular order and a right to shout abuse and create disruption on the convention floor.

 

[metalslimer]

So the case is that maybe they should have used a ballot vote? Ok then file a complaint with the party because that's such a minor quibble because it didn't overturn anything.

Framing this as a both sides messed up deal is the type of attitude that makes you not taken seriously.

 

[JP_]

You are directly saying that there are two sides and there is equivalence here,

Acknowledging that both sides could have handled it better certainly does not suggest they're equally wrong.

and that whilst you don't like what the Sanders's camp did there is justification for it.

I said the opposite.

Anyway, I'll drop it. I was pushing back on the idea that I somehow defended the death threats by acknowledging how the convention was mishandled, which is absurd -- the thread wasn't even about the death threats; we were debating how the convention was handled, which had nothing to do with the death threats because that was after. I see how it could be misinterpreted though.

 

[metalslimer]

Acknowledging that both sides could have handled it better certainly does not suggest they're equally wrong.



I said the opposite.

Saying both sides could have handled it better implies one side is equal or nearly equally at fault and diminishes the harassment campaigns absurdity

And to be honest it's victim blaming considering what happened after.

 

[Maledict]

Originally the case was that they had illegally disqualified 64 Sanders Supporters so that Clinton had the majority.

Then it turned out they hadn't been illegally disqualified, and that Sanders supporters were on the committee that did it, and they weren't even registered democrats.

Then it turned out the majority of those people didn't even turn up at the convention, so even if they hadn't disqualified the Sanders supporters she was still ahead (bearing in mind Clinton supporters were also disqualified).

Then it was that they started business before 10:00, to stop Sanders supporters participating (apparently Clinton supporters are all early risers?), but then we learnt the convention started at 09:00 and that 10:00 was the deadline for registration but people inline counted so that was nothing.

Then it became the chair ignoring rules motions and votes from the floor, and YouTube videos purported to show her overriding the will of the voters in the room. Only it turns out that she wasn't, she was following the rules, and that shouting louder doesn't get a you anything.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is Hillary Clinton had more supporters turn up on the day, and Sander's supporters then threw a tantrum and engaged in behavior which is absolutely not acceptable from anyone. We also learnt that this disruption was part-planned, with Chairs of Sanders camp telling supporters to refuse to leave unless told by a Bernie person.

To;dr - Hillary had more people, therefore she won. Nothing alleged gets away from that simple, bare truth. Nothing done on the day changed that basic fact. She had more people turn up. She won.

 

[EatinOlives]

So the goal posts have moved from "the delegates were STOLEN from Bernie in fraud!!" to "well Hillary won by any metric but I just didn't like the rules". Remember that the story first gained traction because Bernie supporters were allegedly being "turned away" and "disenfranchised". How quickly the narrative chnaged when it became clear that it was just Bernie supporters who couldn't be arsed to show up.

At this point the whining comes off as wanting to find a reason to stay mad.

 

[BlastProcessing]

This has been something of an amusement in this debacle.

In a room of two people the louder one wins.

It makes sense that the main rule change the Sanders people wanted was to allow Megaphones.

Ok want to argue semantics? :S

Sure, it is part of the "rules" that the chair has the authority to determine the outcome of voice votes. Is it the intent of the rules that the chair can determine that outcome of voice votes regardless of what actually happens on the floor? I doubt it.

Then I will modify my statement to:

The "spirit" of the rules wasn't followed (IMO). If a voice vote is not clear, time to get some numbers down. Just going by which side has more people is not appropriate, because individuals are not bound to vote a certain way.

Saying no one has come forward shows the outcome wasn't affected, which is probably true, but I am not arguing about the outcome. I think the PROCESS is important. The process needs to be fair and transparent. The process itself has value and purpose.



Huh???? where have I said that Sanders would have gotten more delegates? I think the outcome would have been the same.
My single objection has been that I don't think the voice votes were appropriately done. That's it.

Again seeing as two of the rules changes Sanders supporters wanted was to allow megaphones and to remove a clause that said that people who were being disruptive could be removed, I don't think the result would have been the same; it would have been more chaotic.

Which very much seemed to be the Sanders camps goal.

I agree that the process needs to be more transparent. If it was, then people would have understood that the Temporary Rules aren't new rules made for this conventions. They are old rules that are referred to as temporary because they could be changed during the proceedings with a 2/3s vote.

This is why the voice vote was easy for the chair to rule on, she wasn't looking for a mere majority, there needed to be 2/3s to change the Temporary Rules. The chair could easily look at the Clinton side and if a good amount of them aren't yelling, 2/3s ain't gonna happen.

The video shows clear bullshittery. I was like WTF


Oh look, more passive aggression aimed at Bernie supporters.

The video clearly shows people who think that there is bullshitery. There is a difference.

So the goal posts have moved from "the delegates were STOLEN from Bernie in fraud!!" to "well Hillary won by any metric but I just didn't like the rules". Remember that the story first gained traction because Bernie supporters were allegedly being "turned away" and "disenfranchised". How quickly the narrative chnaged when it became clear that it was just Bernie supporters who couldn't be arsed to show up.

At this point the whining comes off as wanting to find a reason to stay mad.

"If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law."

 

[Zornack]

I've never defended the death threats etc. It's embarrassing for Sanders' side and it's embarrassing for the Nevada state party. Just because there's two sides doesn't mean there's good guys and bad guys -- both sides could have handled it better and I think it's unfortunate all around.

What's the point of trying to make it so binary? The actions of Nevada state party don't justify the reactions from Sanders' camp and the reactions of Sanders' camp don't justify the actions of the Nevada state party.

Because it is binary. There is no reason to believe that the state party conducted itself poorly. Politifact did not find that they did and neither has any reputable news organization. The only people reporting that shady stuff happened are the conspiracy theorist Bernie fans who scream fraud after every primary that Clinton wins.

Just by trying to portray this as a "both sides are in the wrong" situation is a defense of the death threats. It's akin to telling a domestic abuse victim that they should have known what dinner their partner was expecting.

 

[Wilsongt]

Originally the case was that they had illegally disqualified 64 Sanders Supporters so that Clinton had the majority.

Then it turned out they hadn't been illegally disqualified, and that Sanders supporters were on the committee that did it, and they weren't even registered democrats.

Then it turned out the majority of those people didn't even turn up at the convention, so even if they hadn't disqualified the Sanders supporters she was still ahead (bearing in mind Clinton supporters were also disqualified).

Then it was that they started business before 10:00, to stop Sanders supporters participating (apparently Clinton supporters are all early risers?), but then we learnt the convention started at 09:00 and that 10:00 was the deadline for registration but people inline counted so that was nothing.

Then it became the chair ignoring rules motions and votes from the floor, and YouTube videos purported to show her overriding the will of the voters in the room. Only it turns out that she wasn't, she was following the rules, and that shouting louder doesn't get a you anything.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is Hillary Clinton had more supporters turn up on the day, and Sander's supporters then threw a tantrum and engaged in behavior which is absolutely not acceptable from anyone. We also learnt that this disruption was part-planned, with Chairs of Sanders camp telling supporters to refuse to leave unless told by a Bernie person.

To;dr - Hillary had more people, therefore she won. Nothing alleged gets away from that simple, bare truth. Nothing done on the day changed that basic fact. She had more people turn up. She won.

Well, I guess when your chances of getting the nom require you to get upwards of 70% of the delegates in the next few primaries just to be even close to winning, every delegate counts?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

"both sides could have handled it better" while one side tried to conduct an orderly and legal convention and the other spews death threats and doxxing

OK

Because it is binary. There is no reason to believe that the state party conducted itself poorly. Politifact did not find that they did and neither has any reputable news organization. The only people reporting that shady stuff happened are the conspiracy theorist Bernie fans who scream fraud after every primary that Clinton wins.

Just by trying to portray this as a "both sides are in the wrong" situation is a defense of the death threats. It's akin to telling a domestic abuse victim that they should have known what dinner their partner was expecting.

.

 

[Adaren]

Again seeing as two of the rules changes Sanders supporters wanted was to allow megaphones and to remove a clause that said that people who were being disruptive could be removed, I don't think the result would have been the same; it would have been more chaotic.

Which very much seemed to be the Sanders camps goal.

I agree that the process needs to be more transparent. If it was, then people would have understood that the Temporary Rules aren't new rules made for this conventions. They are old rules that are referred to as temporary because they could be changed during the proceedings with a 2/3s vote.

This is why the voice vote was easy for the chair to rule on, she wasn't looking for a mere majority, there needed to be 2/3s to change the Temporary Rules. The chair could easily look at the Clinton side and if a good amount of them aren't yelling, 2/3s ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for clarifying this!

 

[Maledict]

I love the fact that one of the rules changes they wanted was to allow mega-phones.

I mean, if you wanted to do something deliberately designed to disrupt and fuck up a meeting like that, mega-phones are definitely the way. It would be absolutely insane chaos! What on earth were they thinking? Did they realize that their supporters hadn't turned up so decided to try and break the meeting so hard it had to be reconvened?

 

[gcubed]

Originally the case was that they had illegally disqualified 64 Sanders Supporters so that Clinton had the majority.

Then it turned out they hadn't been illegally disqualified, and that Sanders supporters were on the committee that did it, and they weren't even registered democrats.

Then it turned out the majority of those people didn't even turn up at the convention, so even if they hadn't disqualified the Sanders supporters she was still ahead (bearing in mind Clinton supporters were also disqualified).

Then it was that they started business before 10:00, to stop Sanders supporters participating (apparently Clinton supporters are all early risers?), but then we learnt the convention started at 09:00 and that 10:00 was the deadline for registration but people inline counted so that was nothing.

Then it became the chair ignoring rules motions and votes from the floor, and YouTube videos purported to show her overriding the will of the voters in the room. Only it turns out that she wasn't, she was following the rules, and that shouting louder doesn't get a you anything.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is Hillary Clinton had more supporters turn up on the day, and Sander's supporters then threw a tantrum and engaged in behavior which is absolutely not acceptable from anyone. We also learnt that this disruption was part-planned, with Chairs of Sanders camp telling supporters to refuse to leave unless told by a Bernie person.

To;dr - Hillary had more people, therefore she won. Nothing alleged gets away from that simple, bare truth. Nothing done on the day changed that basic fact. She had more people turn up. She won.

the whiplash from pivoting from one reddit talking point to another reddit talking point on this board was amazing to watch unfold over 24 hours and is hilarious to finally culminate in "yeah, it was all legal and no fraud, but man, i just dont think it was right"

 

[Jenov]

So the goal posts have moved from "the delegates were STOLEN from Bernie in fraud!!" to "well Hillary won by any metric but I just didn't like the rules". Remember that the story first gained traction because Bernie supporters were allegedly being "turned away" and "disenfranchised". How quickly the narrative chnaged when it became clear that it was just Bernie supporters who couldn't be arsed to show up.

At this point the whining comes off as wanting to find a reason to stay mad.

Yeah, it really does seem like grasping at straws at this point. Trying to hang on to something, no matter how innocuous or subjective, that could help lend to the overall fraud narrative in the states Bernie loses. Gotta hold on to it!

 

[hawk2025]

So the goal posts have moved from "the delegates were STOLEN from Bernie in fraud!!" to "well Hillary won by any metric but I just didn't like the rules". Remember that the story first gained traction because Bernie supporters were allegedly being "turned away" and "disenfranchised". How quickly the narrative chnaged when it became clear that it was just Bernie supporters who couldn't be arsed to show up.

At this point the whining comes off as wanting to find a reason to stay mad.

Indeed.

It went from complete indignation and widespread fraud to a minor procedural issue maybe-or-maybe-not being followed 100% correctly with no real impact depending on who you listen to and how many hours of periscope streams you watched.

This story would never have grown if it was just "this one vote was kind of a headcount, maybe she didn't count right" was all there was to it in the first place, as it should have been.

Here we are, and people are still digging their heels in despite the blatant mischaracterization of what actually happened by the Sanders campaign itself. Not some supporters, but the campaign itself. The mischaracterization that he was peddling as the main thrust of his latest email when he should have been denouncing violence and death threats categorically instead.

- Money laundering
- Fraud
- Willful and malicious voter disenfranchisement by the Democratic Party
- Corruption


All lies, all endlessly pushed by the official campaign.

 

[Clefargle]

Reddit is a mess right now. I can't even try to respond to any of the insane posts now because of the high volume. It's just a flood of ignorance and rage getting invited peppered with some supporters from both sides being reasonable and getting downvotes to oblivion. What a shitshow

 

[gutter_trash]

Steve Kornacki from MSNBC said that Bernie needs to exceed 75% in all remaining Primaries, tie in New Jeresy (because it is impossible for Sanders to win NJ) and then he would need to win 80% of California

some steep hill, more like vertical skyscraper

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Reddit is a mess right now. I can't even try to respond to any of the insane posts now because of the high volume. It's just a flood of ignorance and rage getting invited peppered with some supporters from both sides being reasonable and getting downvotes to oblivion. What a shitshow

I got banned yesterday for innocently pointing out that a person was probably trolling, because he was confusing people with weird posts that made no sense.

I make every effort to try and remain calm and inform people and be helpful and I get banned while people can continue to troll, lie, and generally contribute to the anarchy and chaos without anything happening.

The sub is a laughing stock on the Internet, but the mods are in Bernie's fun house, so they won't do anything about it as the sub suffocates itself under its own lunacy.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Reddit is a mess right now. I can't even try to respond to any of the insane posts now because of the high volume. It's just a flood of ignorance and rage getting invited peppered with some supporters from both sides being reasonable and getting downvotes to oblivion. What a shitshow

Reddit is a failed state. Like in any failed state, there are a few pockets remaining of functioning interaction, but entropy will slowly pull it all down.

It would take a herculean effort to right that ship.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

eniently) any source I bring, But then I need to just accept Politifact? Why is that?

Sorry, Im not afraid to call it out. Its bullshit how Bernie supporters are treated like that in these threads. Its why the majority of them won't come in here.

Actually most of them are banned and/or fled to that echo chamber known as reddit, as this poster attested to:

No, we all left GAF political threads after getting bans.

It's okay, during my ban I actually went to r/Politics for the first time ever in my life and now I have a place to go when I want the truth.