Support NeoGAF

[Arkeband]

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:


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.

That's pretty much what I was saying earlier in the thread, glad you could elaborate in greater detail.

There seems to be a sentiment in the thread that because some Bernie Bro harassment occurred, that we should not only ignore but encourage the way the DNC handled this as retroactive punishment for how Bernie supporters behaved after the fact.

It's a more substantive conversation to have about what exactly occurred here than to go "wow death threats sure are bad huh guys wow gross" "seconded" "third" "me too" and anyone who wants to discuss the broader topic is somehow justifying immoral behavior.

 

[Branduil]

"some harassment"

 

[dramatis]

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

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.[/b]

Unfortunately, all of your evidence comes from S4P, which we know is not a bastion of objectivity.

You'll need to do better.

 

[B-Dubs]

Both the DNC and RNC use public funds.

Are you arguing otherwise?

No, he's saying you don't understand what it is you're talking about. Those funds are for the campaigns, not the parties.

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.

They definitely need to readjust the October deadline, it makes sense when the primary is on Super Tuesday but if it's going to stay this far out then it's not going to work.

 

[dave is ok]

Unfortunately, all of your evidence comes from S4P, which we know is not a bastion of objectivity.

You'll need to do better.

He also said he watched hours of video. Is that not valid if it was shot by a Sanders supporter?

You're ridiculous

I can think the people threatening violence are awful and think that changing rules for a 10 o'clock session at 9:30 is shady as fuck. I don't need to pick one or the other.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

That's pretty much what I was saying earlier in the thread, glad you could elaborate in greater detail.

There seems to be a sentiment in the thread that because some Bernie Bro harassment occurred, that we should not only ignore but encourage the way the DNC handled this as retroactive punishment for how Bernie supporters behaved after the fact.

It's a more substantive conversation to have about what exactly occurred here than to go "wow death threats sure are bad huh guys wow gross" "seconded" "third" "me too" and anyone who wants to discuss the broader topic is somehow justifying immoral behavior.

Its about ethics in the DNC, amirite?

 

[PBY]

Bernie pls

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Actually, it's about ethics in..

But #NotAllBer...

*Gets death threats.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

It probably sounds extreme at this point, but given time and the current direction we're going I think it could end in war.

This isn't going to happen.

The Sanders coalition is a minority and composed overwhelmingly of a particular demographic: White 20-somethings; i.e., the only demographic that upvotes more than it actually votes. There are actual populations in American that struggle with profound poverty and hunger... and it's not them. The Sanders camp is not disenfranchised - they simply want a bigger slice of the political pie just for themselves; that's fine, but call it what it is - special interests.

Actual revolutions starting from severe oppression do not look anything like Bernie Sanders' or Ron Paul's or populist_candidate_xx's "revolutions" - the comparison is almost insulting.

 

[Arkeband]

Its about ethics in the DNC, amirite?

Low-effort meme posts are good for discussion.

Unfortunately, all of your evidence comes from S4P, which we know is not a bastion of objectivity.

You'll need to do better.

There is video evidence of basically the entire event that refutes the letter's timeline.

 

[Vanillalite]

No, he's saying you don't understand what it is you're talking about. Those funds are for the campaigns, not the parties.

Its the party that is putting on the primary election.

For example the voting booths used for the primary where I live are electronic booths paid for by tax payers a few years ago.

Those same booths are used for both the primary season and the general election.

The DNC or RNC didn't buy new electronic voting booths. They used the already existing ones in my county.

PS: I realize I am kinda derailing this thread with a different topic thread so I'll bail out vs derailing further.

 

[dramatis]

He also said he watched hours of video. Is that not valid if it was shot by a Sanders supporter?

You're ridiculous

I can think the people threatening violence are awful and think that changing rules for a 10 o'clock session at 9:30 is shady as fuck. I don't need to pick one or the other.

I can watch hours of video with a bias, and my opinion wouldn't be objective either.

The convention started at 9, at 9:30 it was already late. There were no rules changed for a 10 o'clock session at 9:30, that's misinformation.

 

[atr0cious]

He also said he watched hours of video. Is that not valid if it was shot by a Sanders supporter?

Sorry but his breakdown includes this line at the beginning:

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.

They have no clue what actually happened but speculated from this and then turned it into a conspiracy.

 

[brainchild]

Unfortunately, all of your evidence comes from S4P, which we know is not a bastion of objectivity.

You'll need to do better.

No, my evidence comes from reviewing over 6 hours of footage on periscope, much of which I saw LIVE as it was happening. What you see in my previous post is merely a summary of the evidence.

You'll need to do better in contesting the evidence than a flat out refusal to consider it. You can start by actually reviewing the footage.

Here's a start

 

[pigeon]

No, my evidence comes from reviewing over 6 hours of footage on periscope, much of which I saw LIVE as it was happening. What you see in my previous post is merely a summary of the evidence.

You'll need to do better in contesting the evidence than a flat out refusal to consider it. You can start by actually reviewing the footage.

Here's a start

Actually, I am interested in this, but I don't think I can start by reviewing six hours of YouTube footage.

Do you know if there's a convention schedule posted anywhere?

Do you know the if convention rules are posted anywhere?

That seems like a more profitable starting point, since there seems to be debate over even those issues.

 

[Simply Sarah]

All this calling for fully closed primaries confuses me. There are lots of us that don't really support any existing party and you're telling us that we need to pick and choose one of the two big ones just to vote in a primary? This is a complete mockery of the concept of party registration and doesn't help anyone. Either you make switching easy and open enough that the closed primary might as well be open to voters not in any party or you make it strict enough that people have to random guess which party they want to sign up with for a year.

And look, I'm in Massachusetts. For many positions here the real election is the Democratic primary, so not being able to vote in it hugely removes your power as a voter. So your solution is to make it so 80% of the voting population signs up as Dems regardless of whether or not they actually support the party just so they can at least reserve the ability to affect local and state elections? And what happens when people generally like a party in their state but not the national version (or the other way around). Do they need to associate with both just to have some ability to affect things in one area? This all seems like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Blader]

That's pretty much what I was saying earlier in the thread, glad you could elaborate in greater detail.

There seems to be a sentiment in the thread that because some Bernie Bro harassment occurred, that we should not only ignore but encourage the way the DNC handled this as retroactive punishment for how Bernie supporters behaved after the fact.

It's a more substantive conversation to have about what exactly occurred here than to go "wow death threats sure are bad huh guys wow gross" "seconded" "third" "me too" and anyone who wants to discuss the broader topic is somehow justifying immoral behavior.

I think the conversation is not actually "wow death threats sure are bad huh" but the handwaving of that harassment by both the campaign and posts like these.

 

[Y2Kev]

Actually, I am interested in this, but I don't think I can start by reviewing six hours of YouTube footage.

Do you know if there's a convention schedule posted anywhere?

Do you know the if convention rules are posted anywhere?

That seems like a more profitable starting point, since there seems to be debate over even those issues.

I googled and found the rules. The invite also says 9am unless they delayed it.

 

[Y2Kev]

http://action.nvdems.com/page/-/2016_Digital/2016 STATE CONVENTION CALL.pdf

Here. Sorry I'm on mobile.

It says every delegate in line at 10am is registered, which I think happened.

 

[brainchild]

Actually, I am interested in this, but I don't think I can start by reviewing six hours of YouTube footage.

Do you know if there's a convention schedule posted anywhere?

Do you know the if convention rules are posted anywhere?

That seems like a more profitable starting point, since there seems to be debate over even those issues.

I don't have the pamphlet, but here's the deadline for submission of candidacy for the convention:

You will also need to complete the Delegate Intent Form/Statement of Candidacy by 10:00 am, Saturday, May 14th 2016. Here is a list of individuals who have already submitted their Statement of Candidacy as of 1:35 am May 14th, 2016.

http://nvdems.com/caucus/caucus-to-convention/

 

[captmcblack]

Actually, I am interested in this, but I don't think I can start by reviewing six hours of YouTube footage.

Do you know if there's a convention schedule posted anywhere?

Do you know the if convention rules are posted anywhere?

That seems like a more profitable starting point, since there seems to be debate over even those issues.

http://nvdems.3cdn.net/ea5a7f0df495b0cf4c_z2m6bnqh5.pdf

Those are the rules.

"The State Convention shall be called to order at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2016."

The delegates could start queuing up at 7am, and they'd have their credentials reviewed until 10am as long as they were at least in line (so that they wouldn't miss their chance to vote because people were checking their credentials) - but the convention itself starts at 9am.

 

[Omegasquash]

And look, I'm in Massachusetts. For many positions here the real election is the Democratic primary, so not being able to vote in it hugely removes your power as a voter. So your solution is to make it so 80% of the voting population signs up as Dems regardless of whether or not they actually support the party just so they can at least reserve the ability to affect local and state elections? And what happens when people generally like a party in their state but not the national version (or the other way around). Do they need to associate with both just to have some ability to affect things in one area? This all seems like a solution looking for a problem.

The solution is MA can be confusing. You need to be unregistered in order to vote however you like. If you are a registered independent, then you're part of the Independent party.

I made that mistake once, and got screwed out of being able to vote blue. Now that I'm unregistered (maybe unaffiliated), it's really easy.

 

[damisa]

All this calling for fully closed primaries confuses me. There are lots of us that don't really support any existing party and you're telling us that we need to pick and choose one of the two big ones just to vote in a primary? This is a complete mockery of the concept of party registration and doesn't help anyone. Either you make switching easy and open enough that the closed primary might as well be open to voters not in any party or you make it strict enough that people have to random guess which party they want to sign up with for a year.

And look, I'm in Massachusetts. For many positions here the real election is the Democratic primary, so not being able to vote in it hugely removes your power as a voter. So your solution is to make it so 80% of the voting population signs up as Dems regardless of whether or not they actually support the party just so they can at least reserve the ability to affect local and state elections? And what happens when people generally like a party in their state but not the national version (or the other way around). Do they need to associate with both just to have some ability to affect things in one area? This all seems like a solution looking for a problem.

If you agree with democrats enough to vote for them then you should register as a Democrat. If you don't like some things in the party then vote to change them, as a member of that party

 

[Blader]

brainchild, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly do you do for a living that allows you to watch six hours of periscope footage of a state party convention?

The solution is MA can be confusing. You need to be unregistered in order to vote however you like. If you are a registered independent, then you're part of the Independent party.

I made that mistake once, and got screwed out of being able to vote blue. Now that I'm unregistered (maybe unaffiliated), it's really easy.

Yeah, one of my friends was registered independent and couldn't vote, but my girlfriend is unregistered unenrolled and could.

 

[dave is ok]

The solution is MA can be confusing. You need to be unregistered in order to vote however you like. If you are a registered independent, then you're part of the Independent party.

I made that mistake once, and got screwed out of being able to vote blue. Now that I'm unregistered (maybe unaffiliated), it's really easy.

Yeah, one of my friends was registered independent and couldn't vote, but my girlfriend is unregistered and could.

This isn't accurate. Unregistered/Independent are exactly the same thing in MA.

A lot of people mess up and registered for the United Independent Party (or something like that) by mistake and then are unable to participate in primaries.

 

[Blader]

^Right, that was it. He campaigned for Falchuk and never switched again afterward.

 

[Cipherr]

That outcome was the outcome the voters in NV wanted...

Bernie supporters complaining that they were unable to disenfranchise voters.

The media is having a field day today with Bernie. Violent, spoiled, whiny losers. That's the narrative right now. Good job Bernie, you earned it.

He deserves it too.

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.

Saw this bullshit coming a mile away. The rhetoric he has been spewing and the way he has run his campaign has been hilariously disingenuous and irresponsible. Toss his humongous fucking ego on top of it, and I'm not surprised he can't bring himself to condemn the shit instead of making excuses.

Just reaffirms how I won't be sad to see him go.

 

[brainchild]

http://action.nvdems.com/page/-/2016_Digital/2016 STATE CONVENTION CALL.pdf

Here. Sorry I'm on mobile.

It says every delegate in line at 10am is registered, which I think happened.

It most certainly did not happen. The minority report states that the Sanders supporters that were rejected were not given an opportunity to prove their credentials, despite actually having them.

http://nvdems.3cdn.net/ea5a7f0df495b0cf4c_z2m6bnqh5.pdf

Those are the rules.

"The State Convention shall be called to order at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2016."

The delegates could start queuing up at 7am, and they'd have their credentials reviewed until 10am as long as they were at least in line (so that they wouldn't miss their chance to vote because people were checking their credentials) - but the convention itself starts at 9am.

The problem is that there is video documentation clearly demonstrating that rule changes took place before everyone was seated, and before the registration deadline, which was at 10:00am, per the document that you just referenced.

 

[HylianTom]

He deserves it too.



Saw this bullshit coming a mile away. The rhetoric he has been spewing and the way he has run his campaign has been hilariously disingenuous and irresponsible. Toss his humongous fucking ego on top of it, and I'm not surprised he can't bring himself to condemn the shit instead of making excuses.

Just reaffirms how I won't be sad to see him go.

Bernie was asked about it today.

@mmurraypolitics

Per @DannyEFreeman, Sanders held press avail while in Puerto Rico. When asked about NV tension/chaos, Sanders walked away during middle of Q

Yeah.

 

[Simply Sarah]

The solution is MA can be confusing. You need to be unregistered in order to vote however you like. If you are a registered independent, then you're part of the Independent party.

I made that mistake once, and got screwed out of being able to vote blue. Now that I'm unregistered (maybe unaffiliated), it's really easy.

The term is "Unenrolled" to be precise (And yes, it's quite confusing).

If you agree with democrats enough to vote for them then you should register as a Democrat. If you don't like some things in the party then vote to change them, as a member of that party

Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, regardless of where you stand on issues, for many races you only really have a say towards the winner if you vote in the Democratic primary. This means even if you're hard right on things you can't pick the candidate you support the most/would hate the least in the race that actually matters without voting in that primary. You really want to force said person to register as a Democrat so they can have a voice? You're destroying the point of belonging to a party in some quixotic quest to protect the value of parties. Being a Dem in Mass. already means little enough as it is. What you're suggesting would remove any meaning entirely.

 

[WonkyPanda]

You aren't kidding. Just saw a highly-upvoted post saying that if people say "I'm a Bernie supporter, but..." they are paid shills and aren't worth listening to lol.

I've always wondered if there was a correlation between Sanders fall and donald's rise on reddit

 

[Mike M]

All this calling for fully closed primaries confuses me. There are lots of us that don't really support any existing party and you're telling us that we need to pick and choose one of the two big ones just to vote in a primary?

Yes?

Why should you be entitled to involvement in the selection process of the candidate of a party that you don't belong to?

 

[YoYo Switch]

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Sanders supporters are gamergaters.

It wouldn't surprise me that the guy who stole money from the ESO GAF guild would make the dumbest post I've read all week

 

[Omegasquash]

This isn't accurate. Unregistered/Independent are exactly the same thing in MA.

A lot of people mess up and registered for the United Independent Party (or something like that) by mistake and then are unable to participate in primaries.

"Unenrolled" is the term I just found, yeah.

 

[noshten]

We've come full circle with Dems defending voter suppression in primaries and fighting against it in a general

The entire thing is bizarre to be honest. Outside of the USA, the notion that people not in a party get to decide who the parties nominee should be is completely alien - why on *earth* would people who weren't party members get to chose?

Difference is most countries have laws that allow new parties to easily form and gain national relevance via grassroots organization - something which can hardly be stated for the US. But I do realize I'm arguing with exceptionalism as usual

 

[Maledict]

Yes?

Why should you be entitled to involvement in the selection process of the candidate of a party that you don't belong to?

The entire thing is bizarre to be honest. Outside of the USA, the notion that people not in a party get to decide who the parties nominee should be is completely alien - why on *earth* would people who weren't party members get to chose?

 

[brainchild]

brainchild, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly do you do for a living that allows you to watch six hours of periscope footage of a state party convention?

I'm an independent contractor for a marketing firm. I work on my own schedule.

 

[Maledict]

We've come full circle with Dems defending voter suppression in primaries and fighting against it in a general

Don't worry - the Sander's plan to undemocratically take delegates from Hillary Clinton against the will of the voters failed, and the results now tally back to what they were when the people of Nevada voted.

 

[Veritigo_X]

We've come full circle with Dems defending voter suppression in primaries and fighting against it in a general

It's almost like they are completely different processes!

 

[noshten]

Don't worry - the Sander's plan to undemocratically take delegates from Hillary Clinton against the will of the voters failed, and the results now tally back to what they were when the people of Nevada voted.

You seem misinformed Sander's plan is to do away with the caucuses and have the Democratic party open to independents instead of trying to actively block them from participating in the process.

It's almost like they are completely different processes!

Voter suppression that makes it difficult for people to get involved in politics via the primary process - ensures loads of people continue to be disenfranchised and fail to show up in their local elections.

 

[captmcblack]

The problem is that there is video documentation clearly demonstrating that rule changes took place before everyone was seated, and before the registration deadline, which was at 10:00am, per the document that you just referenced.

But the convention starts at 9am, and not 10am.

10am is the deadline for registration - which is a courtesy for people who couldn't get there in a timely fashion. 9am is when the convention happens, as stated in that document. What rule changes occurred in the convention after it started at 9am? Were those rule changes against anything in that document? If they were, or if those rule changes occurred before 9am, that would definitely be messed up. But if they were voted on by people who were registered and seated at 9am when the convention started, I'm not sure what the problem is short of it being painful/sucky for the losing side.

Weren't there more delegates for the Sanders group anyway (since they won in February), something like 2300? How come 700 people didn't show up to vote for him that Saturday? If they turned out more of their delegates, this wouldn't be a problem either. I think the Hillary group got most of their guys organized to show up (16xx out of 1700-ish)...

 

[brainchild]

Don't worry - the Sander's plan to undemocratically take delegates from Hillary Clinton against the will of the voters failed, and the results now tally back to what they were when the people of Nevada voted.

I have no problem with the bolded. I do have a problem the state party's conduct. If the DNC behaves similarly at the national convention, the Democratic party can kiss the election goodbye. They cannot win without the majority of Sanders supporters, and Sanders supporters will most certainly not back a party that would violate their own rules on the national level.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Bernie was asked about it today.

@mmurraypolitics


Yeah.

That was a pretty typical Bernie response. Hopefully he keeps walking away right the fuck out of the primary he has clearly lost.

 

[Mike M]

The entire thing is bizarre to be honest. Outside of the USA, the notion that people not in a party get to decide who the parties nominee should be is completely alien - why on *earth* would people who weren't party members get to chose?

I think the fact that it's framed as a primary election is perhaps the main source of the confusion in the U.S. People conflate it with the process by which candidates are elected into office.

 

[jack_package_200]

Edit: Someone beat me to it

 

[Roland_Gunner]

You seem misinformed Sander's plan is to do away with the caucuses and have the Democratic party open to independents instead of trying to actively block them from participating in the process.

Uh no, the Sanders plan is to intimidate enough super-delegates into supporting him to overcome Clinton's pledged delegate lead:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/State-s-Democratic-superdelegates-feel-heat-7348068.php

 

[Simply Sarah]

The entire thing is bizarre to be honest. Outside of the USA, the notion that people not in a party get to decide who the parties nominee should be is completely alien - why on *earth* would people who weren't party members get to chose?

In most other places there is no concept of a closed primary to start with. Nominees tend to be picked by people actually active in the party rather than just people with a membership card. That's not how it works here. All that matters in a closed primary here is having signed up for that party regardless of if you even know what the party and candidates stand for.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You seem misinformed Sander's plan is to do away with the caucuses and have the Democratic party open to independents instead of trying to actively block them from participating in the process.

There's only one side advocating for massive suppression of voters, and it's the man calling for Super Delegates to override the will of the people, and for state delegates to override how their state voted and support him because some random polls said he might beat Trump a bit more than Hillary, who is also polling as beating Trump.

Sanders has also never called for the end of caucuses for obvious reasons. Which speaks about his true integrity.

 

[HylianTom]

I have no problem with the bolded. I do have a problem the state party's conduct. If the DNC behaves similarly at the national convention, the Democratic party can kiss the election goodbye. They cannot win without the majority of Sanders supporters, and Sanders supporters will most certainly not back a party that would violate their own rules on the national level.

If you think that majority of Bernie supporters are willing to take the party hostage, that's adorable.

 

[Y2Kev]

It most certainly did not happen. The minority report states that the Sanders supporters that were rejected were not given an opportunity to prove their credentials, despite actually having them.

The problem is that there is video documentation clearly demonstrating that rule changes took place before everyone was seated, and before the registration deadline, which was at 10:00am, per the document that you just referenced.

Ok, but again, the picture you linked isn't a timing issue. It's unfortunate, but if they cut off registration at 2pm I don't think it would have helped her.

What is the rule change that resulted in people being unable to register?