The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Purple]

At that point why not just have all the candidates stand for a direct election without the whole independent thing?

[Elheru Aran]

Honestly, I fail to see why we cannot simply have one nationwide semi-open (i.e. independents can vote but not members of other parties) primary for the nominees with the result determined by popular vote alone. Hold a runoff if no one gets a majority of votes. It would greatly simplify the whole mess, while being actually democratic.

Come again?

Do you mean like one nationwide primary for the Democrats and another for the Republicans? I'm not 100% clear here...

But frankly I'm fine with this. Election reform needs to occur on the nationwide level anyway. I'd be totally OK with Congress ruling that on so and so date in the spring, every state should hold a primary election, and if candidates don't throw their name in the hat by that point, too bad.

Where that runs into gridlock is that the parties are ultimately private organizations, even though the candidates run for public office, and the various states would kick up holy hell because their special-snowflake-primary status got taken away. Like, nobody gives much of a shit about New Hampshire, but it's one of the first states to have primaries, you know?

[The Romulan Republic]

At that point why not just have all the candidates stand for a direct election without the whole independent thing?

That's actually not a bad point in theory, but I don't see the party system going away any time soon. People with similar ideas will form political organizations, and those organizations will try to pick a nominee, and argue over who it should be because agreeing on some issues doesn't mean agreeing on all of them.

So I accept that their will be parties, and independents, and party primaries, or something similar. Though I feel independents should be allowed to participate in them because they make up a large portion of the electorate who would otherwise have less of a voice and their support will be needed in the general election. I'd just like to streamline the clusterfuck and make it more fair.

Honestly, I fail to see why we cannot simply have one nationwide semi-open (i.e. independents can vote but not members of other parties) primary for the nominees with the result determined by popular vote alone. Hold a runoff if no one gets a majority of votes. It would greatly simplify the whole mess, while being actually democratic.

Come again?

Do you mean like one nationwide primary for the Democrats and another for the Republicans? I'm not 100% clear here...

Yes.

But frankly I'm fine with this. Election reform needs to occur on the nationwide level anyway. I'd be totally OK with Congress ruling that on so and so date in the spring, every state should hold a primary election, and if candidates don't throw their name in the hat by that point, too bad.

Where that runs into gridlock is that the parties are ultimately private organizations, even though the candidates run for public office, and the various states would kick up holy hell because their special-snowflake-primary status got taken away. Like, nobody gives much of a shit about New Hampshire, but it's one of the first states to have primaries, you know?

Indeed.

What should happen and what is practical to implement may be two different things, sadly.

Also, on the Nevada mess, to counter maraxus2's blatantly pro-Clinton take, here is an official Sanders campaign statement of their position on the clusterfuck:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... nt-nevada/

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday issued the following statement:

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.

“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.

“If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”

Now, Nevada is a close state, correct? I do not and will not support Bernie or Bust, as I feel its a counterproductive and destructive position, but realistically, pulling this kind of shit could increase Bernie or Bust and even Bernie or Trump numbers and swing Nevada to Drumpf.

What I see is that certain people in the Clinton camp are apparently more concerned with marginalizing Sanders and punishing him for not knowing his place than they are with defeating Drumpf and the Republicans. That or they arrogantly assume that they will win regardless.

Or maybe, just maybe, they're not as confident about Clinton's inevitability as many say.

[Elheru Aran]

Minor grammatical suggestion: If you mean 'Bernie or Trump' as one phrase, perhaps hyphenate it as 'Bernie-or-Trump'. Without the hyphenation it's a bit vague whether you mean the two proper nouns in conjunction or independently. 'Bernie-or-Bust' is a noun and a verb, so that's less vague.

Carry on...

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its too late to edit it now, but thanks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Somewhat biased article, I think, but it does provide some interesting information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... g-violence

The Nevada Democratic Party filed a formal complaint Monday against the campaign of Bernie Sanders after Saturday's state convention devolved into chaos. In the letter to the national party, it went so far as to accuse the Sanders campaign of fomenting violence.

By Tuesday afternoon, Sanders's campaign responded in a defiant tone, condemning alleged threats made against party officials but standing by supporters who are unhappy about what transpired at the convention.

The three-page letter from the Nevada state party's counsel reads, in part:

We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sander [sic] 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.

The letter details behavior of a small number of Sanders supporters who, angry at a vote rejecting proposed changes to the rules of the day, protested loudly over the course of the day's proceedings. That anger was heightened by the fact that, despite Sanders's team having managed to get more people elected to attend the event, more delegates for Hillary Clinton showed up on Saturday. Clinton had about 30 more people in the room -- but nearly 60 Sanders delegates were rejected for not being registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline.

This is where the state party points fingers directly at Sanders's campaign.

The most egregious instance of the Sanders campaign inciting disruption — and yes, violence — came as the state convention’s Credentials Committee completed its work. Adam Gillette, part of National Delegate Operations Team for the official Sanders campaign, drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary, inaccurate and wholly unauthorized “minority report” charging that the Credentials Committee had fraudulently denied 64 Sanders delegates their eligibility.

The party argues that six of those 64 delegates were seated -- and that a committee comprised of five Clinton and five Sanders supporters agreed to reject the delegates' credentials. "[O]ne can imagine the rage occasioned by this inflammatory charge, tossed into the tinderbox of a tense convention hall," general counsel Bradley Schrager writes. The scene was so tense that at the end of the event, the casino where it was being held demanded the convention adjourn, and law enforcement officials came in to assure order.

Part of the frustration from the state party is clearly that objections to what happened on Saturday, fueled by anger on social media, carried over outside the convention itself. Journalist Jon Ralston documented graffiti on the Democratic Party headquarters in the state disputing the outcome and targeting the chairwoman of the party, Roberta Lange.


guillotine
Lange also received a number of voice mails and text messages from across the country that were provided to the media. Many included threats of violence; some included Lange's home address. Her phone number and the address of the party headquarters were distributed on social media.

Okay, first of all, it should go without saying that any threats/harassment/violence is unacceptable. If some Sanders supporters are engaging in that, they should be dealt with through the appropriate legal channels. And Sanders himself has criticized such behaviour, as he should.

However, unless the Democratic Party of Nevada has some evidence of which I am not aware, a formal accusation of political violence against the Sanders campaign represents a special low for the Clintonites. Sanders should, needs to, sue for libel.

Also, I increasingly fear that, short of a miracle, Drumpf will win. I hope I'm wrong, and I very well could be- predicting the outcome of elections five and a half months in advance is a fool's errand, but I don't see how you can go from false accusations of inciting violence to party unity in a few months. I'll be voting for Clinton regardless, because fuck the fascist, but Clinton's lickspittles are risking making a fascist President for the sake of ego and spite.

[Omega18]

Also, on the Nevada mess, to counter maraxus2's blatantly pro-Clinton take, here is an official Sanders campaign statement of their position on the clusterfuck:

The problem is the Sanders campaign appears to still simply be making inaccurate or wildly misleading claims about delegates not being admitted actually changing the voting outcome.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/312952650/nsdp

[The Romulan Republic]

I honestly don't know who's in the right on that one, but I'll trust Sanders' word over the people accusing his campaign of inciting political violence.

In any case, my main issue is with the outrageous allegations that amount to, effectively, accusing the Sanders campaign (and by implication, at least, Bernie himself) of terrorism. That's a new low even for this primary, I think.

[Omega18]

I honestly don't know who's in the right on that one, but I'll trust Sanders' word over the people accusing his campaign of inciting political violence.

You can, but it doesn't mean you're remotely correct, and the DNC did have specific examples of specific behavior from the Sanders campaign which clearly does appear to have at a minimum aggravated tensions.(They also accused the campaign which can include volunteers as opposed to Sanders personally for the record in the statement, although I certainly personally think they should have left the statement at something like "aggravated tensions" and they let emotions get the better of them.)

You also have the underlying issue that what Sanders supporters were trying to do was undermine the results of the earlier actual Nevada caucus when voters in general participated. Now its true everything the Sanders campaign did in phase two to move things in the favor was clearly part of the current rules, (although not exactly part of the ideals of Democracy). However what steps the Sanders and especially individuals associated with his campaign did engage in during the third phase to try to alter the pledged delegate outcome so Sanders would actually win more of them in the state of Nevada is a relevant issue, especially when realistically Clinton is already overwhelmingly likely to be the nominee.

If you want detail on the sort of threats, which even included harassing random employees of a restaurant owned by the Nevada DNC Party chair, there is some coverage here.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/ ... #read-more

[maraxus2]

Jesus Christ, are you dense? Bernie should sue for libel? Over actions that his supporters - his delegates - were clearly guilty of? After his supporters have been harassing Lange in a truly contemptible way? Including threatening the business that she manages?

Here's the whole shebang, from Nevada's premier political reporter (and avowed Clinton-hater) Jon Ralston:

The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel
by Jon Ralston Mon, 05/16/2016
On the eve of the Nevada Democratic Convention in Las Vegas, Friday the 13th as the calendar would have it, Bernie Sanders issued a news release asking for good fortune on that traditionally unlucky day.

The Vermont senator, prodded by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who feared unrest at the state confab after a hard-fought caucus battle, talked of “transformational change in America through honest and dignified discussion of the issues” and emphasized “working together respectfully and constructively” to defeat Donald Trump in November.

It was a game effort, but doomed to fail.

What ensued at the Paris Hotel the following day was anything but honest and dignified and everything but respectful and constructive as dozens of Sanders delegates exploded in anger at what they called an anti-democratic attempt to steal the convention from them.

By the time hotel security shut down the event late Saturday evening, the Sanders delegates had hurled ugly epithets at Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, and used a sign to block her from being shown on big screens; screamed vulgarities at state Chairwoman Roberta Lange, who later received death threats after Sanders sympathizers posted her cell phone number and home address online; and threw chairs at the stage as they rushed forward to try to take control of a convention they had lost, just as Sanders was defeated at the Feb. 20 by Clinton in in a decisive result.

The next day, a group of Sanders supporters protested at the state Democratic Party headquarters and scrawled messages ('Murdered democracy" and "You are scum" among them) on the outside walls and nearby sidewalks.

Sanders, who had national campaign operatives on the floor at the Paris, has yet to comment on the near-riot his local operatives enabled as they poured gas on a fire that started with a lawsuit against the party and ignited after arguments about rules, voice votes and rejected delegates.

Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place. Instead of acknowledging they were out-organized by a Clinton campaign chastened by county convention results and reanimated to cement the caucus numbers at the Paris, the Sanders folks have decided to cry conflagration in a crowded building, without regard to what they burn down in the process.

If what happens in Vegas happens in Philadelphia, the chances of a unified Democratic Party in the general election are virtually nonexistent and the odds of a President Trump suddenly don’t look so long.

----

Democracy is messy, caucuses are messier and conventions are the messiest of all. But even by those metrics, the Saturday gathering on the Las Vegas Strip was as noisy and pointless as a second-rate vaudeville act.

It also was inevitable.

The passion coursing through the Sanders movement, well documented in Nevada and elsewhere, has only grown more intense – and at time irrationally directed – as the inevitability of a Clinton nomination has become clear. The senator’s inability – or refusal – to tamp down the grassroots uprising he has engendered, even when it veers off a productive course, surely stems from his genuine surprise at his viability and his frustration with the Clinton machine.

All of that came to a head in Las Vegas on Saturday, presaged by a failed lawsuit with Team Sanders alleging state Democrats had conspired to prevent their people from being in key party positions. This is the kind of arcana that usually dominates intraparty fights and convention tussles – arguments over rules and bylaws.

But Reid and his team, which runs the Democratic Party, knew that the Sanders folks, who had taken over county conventions after losing the caucus, were itching to cause trouble at the Paris. That’s why he induced Sanders to put out the unity statement the night before.

Reid, who endorsed Clinton shortly after helping her win the caucus, has iron-fisted control over the party apparatus and has for many years. Chairwoman Lange answers to him and his operatives, but that does not, as the twisted transitive property of Sandersophiles seems to conclude, mean she is corrupt.

What’s more, the whole arrangement has worked pretty well, turning the Nevada Democratic Party into one of the most formidable organizations in the country. Since 2008, and with last cycle the only blip, the Democratic Party in Nevada has overseen two presidential victories, a miraculous Reid re-election and many lower-ballot wins, thanks to a legal money-laundering operation and a massive voter registration vehicle.

Sometimes the Establishment is, you know, the good guys, especially when, you know, they win a lot of seats. That's what parties are suppsoed to do, not be outlets for malcontents who have empty social lives or rabble rousers without a cause.

The stage was set before the gavel came down Saturday, and it’s clear party officials were ready for the Sanders delegates to try to disrupt the convention. (Indeed, the Sanders campaign had tried to have standard “if you disrupt, you get thrown out” language removed from the rules before the convention.)

Much of what occurred was inflamed by Democratic National Committeewoman Erin Bilbray, who fired up the Sanders folks about the issues that caused the lawsuit and then started shouting at the Paris about “Roberta’s rules” being used instead of “Robert’s Rules.” Some context: Ironically, Bilbray started a group called Emerge, designed to help elect Democratic women, before she decided to work against the potential first female Democratic president. Bilbray has been fine with the party for years and was grudgingly anointed by Reid to run for Congress in 2014, a race she lost by 25 percentage points.

She has been clutching at relevancy ever since, attacking the Establishment and by extension, Reid, who was a close political ally of her father, ex-Rep. Jim Bilbray, a Clinton supporter.

Yes, Nevada is a small state.

Bilbray led the charge soon after the convention began to try to institute rule changes – a scene like many others repeated at countless conventions here and everywhere. But Lange, knowing that there were more Clinton delegates, disregarded the louder Sanders contingent on a voice vote, and cut it off, which began the march toward chaos.

The slow simmer toward the boiling over that evening began as at least two national Sanders operatives – Joan Kato, the former state director who became national delegate overseer for the campaign, and attorney Matt Berg – were in the room. There would later be debates over credentials – again, this occurs at every convention –with Sanders people complaining that they were illegally denied access.

When security called for the convention to end, it descended into screaming, chair-throwing and obscenities, with many videos like this one (warning: language) posted online to show the chaos. Congressional hopeful Jesse Sbaih, a Bernie backer, was up on stage for a moment in the sun. Others, too, tried to wrest control from Lange; some Berners charged the stage, according to numerous witnesses.

It was ugly; maybe not Chicago ’68 ugly, but ugly.

----

Despite all of this, the Sunday chalking of the walls and sidewalks and the social media nastiness still going on, some facts are ineluctable, some of them elucidated in this post from the state Democratic Party:

►Sanders lost the caucus on Feb. 20. He had no right to the most delegates, even if the Clinton campaign was asleep at the switch for the county conventions. The Sanders campaign simply did not follow through. As the Medium post reveals, the Sanders folks just did not show up; the Clinton delegates did:

Clinton only had 27 delegate positions vacant on Saturday. Sanders left 462 vacant. Clinton filled 98 percent of her available delegate slots at the State Convention, and Sanders only filled 78 percent of his available delegate slots.

End of story. They lost

►On the 64 delegates the Sanders campaign insists should have been seated, the Democratic Party post reveals only six showed up and:

The remaining potential delegates were ineligible for two main reasons: 1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it.

Rules, it appears, have no place in a revolution.

“They're lazy, they don't read the rules and when the rules are pointed out to them, they cry by exaggerating some Democratic talking point (everyone should participate, rules are unfair, it's mean to do this),” said one longtime Democrat who attended what he called his "first and last convention.”

The credentials committee, made up of half Sanders and half Clinton supporters, had no ability to simply toss rules such as May 1 registration date. The Sanders folks repeatedly raised what neutral observers said were either red herrings or nonsensical arguments, including that parking was so difficult some got there very late.

One eyewitness described it thusly: "There was some guy testifying that he missed getting in line because he stopped for a cigarette or got the wrong directions from the concierge. Or some guy who wasn't registered to vote but brought an incomplete registration application with him, and the Bernie folks would say ‘He clearly wants to participate, we're Democrats and we're inclusive.’”

Soon after the convention ended, Angie Morelli, a Sanders organizer who previously had posted a petition talking about the pilfering of democracy, sent out a “news” release with the all-caps headline: “ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS CORRUPTION NEARLY CAUSE A RIOT AT THE NEVADA STATE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION “

Morelli led with Lange having to “flee” the convention and added, “Delegates from the convention reported instances in which Lange repeatedly ignored petitions, motions from the floor, and even appeared to rule against the clear majority in multiple voice votes, leading to a convention full of enraged and shocked delegates.”

Uh huh.

Morelli goes on to complain about Lange trying to have a megaphone she used confiscated – the horror! – and then focus on a so-called “minority report” from the credentials committee, presented by a Sanders member to talk about the supposedly denied delegates.

So how many of the delegates believe in the ghosts that the Bilbray-Morelli caucus conjure?

Said one keen observer: “It's a minority, sure, but the problem is the Sanders people use them. Rile them, send them out there, profit from the chaos but disclaim (sometimes, and weakly) responsibility. That ‘minority report’ last night is a perfect example. They drafted it, manipulated a Sanders member of the credentials committee into demanding it be delivered, then profited from the rumor that the delegates were stolen. That's brilliant, sure, but also pretty sick.”

And to what end, really?

Let’s suppose the worst – that the Sanders delegates were improperly denied (even though 56 of the 64 weren't there) and Sanders had more delegates than Clinton and Sanders won the day. Then what?

Sanders is still going to lose the nomination by a little something called math, barring anything unforeseen. And are Bilbray, Morelli and other Berniebots going to make the Nevada Democratic Party better by filling slots to take control of an organization that has dominated Nevada politics and been copycatted by Republicans? What exactly do they bring to the table except blind fury and guaranteed disorganization? (Will Bilbray run the party like her congressional campaign? If so, Nevada will be red for years to come.)

I have little doubt that Lange was given orders from Reidworld to try to keep order and not let the Sanders delegates take over. So what?

Does this merit the Sanders folks posting he personal information so she is getting death threats and messages that they know where her grandchild goes to school?

Clinton has a difficult needle-threading job keeping the Sanders voters in the tent as she moves toward November. But if Sanders does not soon disavow what his team here has overseen -- and even the senator may not be able to douse the wildfire he lit -- there is no reason to believe that what happened at the Paris in May will not happen at the Wells Fargo Center in July.

Link

Remember back when Bernie said "This ugly incident confirms that the politics of division has no place in our country. Mr. Trump should take responsibility for addressing his supporter's violent actions." And now says, "Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked." And then fled the scene when asked about it during a presser today?

There's no both sides in this mess. Bernie needs to step the fuck up and disavow these tactics, publicly and explicitly, or the man is not fit to represent the Democratic Party in 2016.

[maraxus2]

And let's not forget that this whole clusterfuck happened because Sanders delegates, the candidate ostensibly standing for transparency and democracy, were trying to overturn the results of a three month-old caucus. It's not like he's got much of a moral leg to stand on here.

[Terralthra]

It's not "overturning the results", it's the next step in the process, and the results can change at each stage. Don't blame one candidate or the other for a broken system. It's a three-step process. Might as well call Cruz's efforts to get delegates friendly to his cause appointed in Colorado as pledged-Trump delegates "immoral". RIght now there are multiple stories, each of which blames one side or the other. Rather than believe one or the other entirely, I'm inclined to believe that most of the most outrageous things each side claims are probably outliers, while still thinking the whole process is abegefuckt.

If you hold, as you do, that caucuses are stupid and don't represent the will of the voters effectively, then you can't actually believe that the results of the first stage of the caucus are sacrosanct. That's self-contradictory.

[Purple]

That's actually not a bad point in theory, but I don't see the party system going away any time soon. People with similar ideas will form political organizations, and those organizations will try to pick a nominee, and argue over who it should be because agreeing on some issues doesn't mean agreeing on all of them.

So I accept that their will be parties, and independents, and party primaries, or something similar. Though I feel independents should be allowed to participate in them because they make up a large portion of the electorate who would otherwise have less of a voice and their support will be needed in the general election. I'd just like to streamline the clusterfuck and make it more fair..

Well basically what I meant was that instead of having primaries for the big parties and than elections for 1 from each + independents you could just have a single nation wide election where each party nominates as many people as they want (like they do for primaries now) + independents running on the side (as they do in your general election). As these elections go on candidates with few votes would flake away (as they do now in the primaries) and in the end you'd either have one taking the title with a vast majority or at worst you'd have to run a second cycle to decide between those two that remain. So in effect you'd get a hyper open primary where everyone votes AND independents get a chance to draw far votes away in a far more visible manner.

[The Romulan Republic]

And let's not forget that this whole clusterfuck happened because Sanders delegates, the candidate ostensibly standing for transparency and democracy, were trying to overturn the results of a three month-old caucus. It's not like he's got much of a moral leg to stand on here.

Excuse me?

Leaving aside the argument that Sanders' people did nothing improper by trying to effect the results, because others are handling that, do you mean to suggest that this somehow excuses everything the Clinton campaign did, or false allegations of political violence against the Sanders campaign? Or that these things are somehow equivalent?

I don't care what Bernie did. The Nevada Democratic Party crossed a fucking line, and that would be true even if they had video of Sanders boasting about committing fraud (which they obviously don't).

[The Romulan Republic]

I honestly don't know who's in the right on that one, but I'll trust Sanders' word over the people accusing his campaign of inciting political violence.

You can, but it doesn't mean you're remotely correct, and the DNC did have specific examples of specific behavior from the Sanders campaign which clearly does appear to have at a minimum aggravated tensions.(They also accused the campaign which can include volunteers as opposed to Sanders personally for the record in the statement, although I certainly personally think they should have left the statement at something like "aggravated tensions" and they let emotions get the better of them.)

You also have the underlying issue that what Sanders supporters were trying to do was undermine the results of the earlier actual Nevada caucus when voters in general participated. Now its true everything the Sanders campaign did in phase two to move things in the favor was clearly part of the current rules, (although not exactly part of the ideals of Democracy). However what steps the Sanders and especially individuals associated with his campaign did engage in during the third phase to try to alter the pledged delegate outcome so Sanders would actually win more of them in the state of Nevada is a relevant issue, especially when realistically Clinton is already overwhelmingly likely to be the nominee.

If you want detail on the sort of threats, which even included harassing random employees of a restaurant owned by the Nevada DNC Party chair, there is some coverage here.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/ ... #read-more

I am very clearly not denying that some individual Sanders supporters may have done things they shouldn't have. I already called that out. I have been rather consistent and vocal in my opposition to political violence by any side on this board, I have a posting record going back years to back that up, so don't pretend otherwise.

But that's not what the Nevada Democratic Party is accusing. They are alleging that incitement of violence, and, in their words "actual violence" were orchestrated by the Sanders campaign. That is an entirely different thing, and you damn well know it.

And I'm pretty sure daily kos is a known pro-Clinton source.

As for maraxus2, you're a pathetic Clinton shill and its plain for all to see. Bernie already condemned violence as you yourself quoted, and yet you attack him for it. Sure, he could say more, but there is, to my knowledge, zero evidence at all that he orchestrated, condoned, or supports any harassment, threats, or violence. What you want, I dare say, is not his condemnation or disavowment, but his confession. To something their is no evidence of him being responsible for. Because "some Sanders supporters somewhere did something bad" is not the same as "the Sanders campaign is responsible", you worthless, Drumpf-aiding partisan hack.

That you actually have the gaul to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his own people, as if its only a bad thing when it happens to Clinton supporters, is just the cherry on the shit sunday that is your brain.

You even say their are no both sides, outright saying that Sanders and his supporters are entirely responsible right after quoting the allegations of violence against them. Have you no shame at all? Do you think Bernie supporters are fair game for gunshots?

And yes, he should sue for libel, because already the vicious lie against his campaign, and the implication that Sanders himself condones terrorism, is taking hold. As your post illustrates.

[Flagg]

Is anyone else getting a hardcore "Cult of Personality" vibe from the really hardcore BernieBros (mostly on FB, not so much here)? I remember how obnoxious the Clinton supports could, and often were during the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, with Bill sometimes coming out with some truly vile dog whistling while things were still up in the air and with many female (and some) male 'Hillary or Die' (whish I'd thought that one up 8 years ago ) douchebags vowing not to support, let alone vote, for Obama?

You know, the ones who immediately started supporting, and then months later voted for Obama after Hillary gave her convention concession speech?

I have a bad feeling that's not going to happen this time because the Hillary or Die people look like rational individuals now. And that's just sad.

[Flagg]

I honestly don't know who's in the right on that one, but I'll trust Sanders' word over the people accusing his campaign of inciting political violence.

You can, but it doesn't mean you're remotely correct, and the DNC did have specific examples of specific behavior from the Sanders campaign which clearly does appear to have at a minimum aggravated tensions.(They also accused the campaign which can include volunteers as opposed to Sanders personally for the record in the statement, although I certainly personally think they should have left the statement at something like "aggravated tensions" and they let emotions get the better of them.)

You also have the underlying issue that what Sanders supporters were trying to do was undermine the results of the earlier actual Nevada caucus when voters in general participated. Now its true everything the Sanders campaign did in phase two to move things in the favor was clearly part of the current rules, (although not exactly part of the ideals of Democracy). However what steps the Sanders and especially individuals associated with his campaign did engage in during the third phase to try to alter the pledged delegate outcome so Sanders would actually win more of them in the state of Nevada is a relevant issue, especially when realistically Clinton is already overwhelmingly likely to be the nominee.

If you want detail on the sort of threats, which even included harassing random employees of a restaurant owned by the Nevada DNC Party chair, there is some coverage here.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/ ... #read-more

I am very clearly not denying that some individual Sanders supporters may have done things they shouldn't have. I already called that out. I have been rather consistent and vocal in my opposition to political violence by any side on this board, I have a posting record going back years to back that up, so don't pretend otherwise.

But that's not what the Nevada Democratic Party is accusing. They are alleging that incitement of violence, and, in their words "actual violence" were orchestrated by the Sanders campaign. That is an entirely different thing, and you damn well know it.

And I'm pretty sure daily kos is a known pro-Clinton source.

As for maraxus2, you're a pathetic Clinton shill and its plain for all to see. Bernie already condemned violence as you yourself quoted, and yet you attack him for it. Sure, he could say more, but there is, to my knowledge, zero evidence at all that he orchestrated, condoned, or supports any harassment, threats, or violence. What you want, I dare say, is not his condemnation or disavowment, but his confession. To something their is no evidence of him being responsible for. Because "some Sanders supporters somewhere did something bad" is not the same as "the Sanders campaign is responsible", you worthless, Drumpf-aiding partisan hack.

That you actually have the gaul to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his own people, as if its only a bad thing when it happens to Clinton supporters, is just the cherry on the shit sunday that is your brain.

You even say their are no both sides, outright saying that Sanders and his supporters are entirely responsible right after quoting the allegations of violence against them. Have you no shame at all? Do you think Bernie supporters are fair game for gunshots?

And yes, he should sue for libel, because already the vicious lie against his campaign, and the implication that Sanders himself condones terrorism, is taking hold. As your post illustrates.

Dude, you're now calling people of candidates that you dislike "shills"? Go home, you're drunk.

[The Romulan Republic]

Liar.

I'm calling him a shill, as I explained, for peddling a false, defamatory narrative that serves no purpose but to destroy a political opponent's reputation and aid Drumpf in the process, and going so far as to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his people and then claim that Sanders' side is entirely to blame (talk about victim blaming).

As to your other post, their are some Bernie supporters who seem to think Bernie can do no wrong, though you get those types for any major political figure to some extent, probably. And if you think there isn't a Hillary cult now, you're mistaken.

How many their are on either side, I don't know. But as for people not voting for Clinton if she's the nominee... well, one doesn't have to think Bernie is perfect to hate Clinton's guts. And while I fully intend to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee (and back a primary challenge against her in four years), Clinton and her people seem to be actively trying to alienate Bernie supporters. That's on her and her supporters too, not just the Bernie people.

I do despise the overuse of the "Bernie Bros" label, because its used to insinuate that Sanders supporters are sexist, and that their support for Sanders is motivated by sexism. Their are reasons for loathing Clinton that have nothing to do with her being a woman (for the record, I'm already rooting for Tulsi Gabbard 2024).

Edit: Oh, and I pretty much don't drink.

[Flagg]

Liar.

I'm calling him a shill, as I explained, for peddling a false, defamatory narrative that serves no purpose but to destroy a political opponent's reputation and aid Drumpf in the process, and going so far as to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his people and then claim that Sanders' side is entirely to blame (talk about victim blaming).

As to your other post, their are some Bernie supporters who seem to think Bernie can do no wrong, though you get those types for any major political figure to some extent, probably. And if you think there isn't a Hillary cult now, you're mistaken.

How many their are on either side, I don't know. But as for people not voting for Clinton if she's the nominee... well, one doesn't have to think Bernie is perfect to hate Clinton's guts. And while I fully intend to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee (and back a primary challenge against her in four years), Clinton and her people seem to be actively trying to alienate Bernie supporters. That's on her and her supporters too, not just the Bernie people.

I do despise the overuse of the "Bernie Bros" label, because its used to insinuate that Sanders supporters are sexist, and that their support for Sanders is motivated by sexism. Their are reasons for loathing Clinton that have nothing to do with her being a woman (for the record, I'm already rooting for Tulsi Gabbard 2024).

Edit: Oh, and I pretty much don't drink.

Dude, you called him a shill for Clinton. And you did it because all of your arguments can be roughly translated into a fucking fart noise. Now go about proving he's a shill for Clinton or I'm reporting your ass, since you have been going around in circles for page after page. Slanderous little troglodyte.

[The Romulan Republic]

I already stated my reasons. If you choose to ignore them, that is not my responsibility. He is furthering a blatantly dishonest and biased argument against Sanders and his supporters. You are providing fuck all to refute that criticism (where as I have posted a source to back my argument up, in the form of Sanders' own words on the subject)- your argument consists entirely of personal insults and accusations. If this is going in circles, that's on you.

In addition to that, he clearly favours Clinton in his posts, and described himself in one of his posts on the previous page as a party hack (his words).

But if you don't like the word "shill", I can use "dishonest partisan mudslinger" instead. Or any number of more colourful insults.

As for the rest, if you feel I've broken a rule, you are, as always, free to put your money where your mouth is and report me. Otherwise, stop posturing and pretending like you're a big man and fuck off.

[Ralin]

Is anyone else getting a hardcore "Cult of Personality" vibe from the really hardcore BernieBros (mostly on FB, not so much here)? I remember how obnoxious the Clinton supports could, and often were during the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, with Bill sometimes coming out with some truly vile dog whistling while things were still up in the air and with many female (and some) male 'Hillary or Die' (whish I'd thought that one up 8 years ago ) douchebags vowing not to support, let alone vote, for Obama?

I remember fanatical Obama bots being a more of a thing, and a lot more annoying. Though I didn't have personal contact with many Hillary supporters at the time, so that may be a perspective thing.

That said, I don't think cult of personality is really the right term so much as a bunch of obsessive individuals. Many of them with ego problems and a pronounced need to have their way.

[Omega18]

Kentucky has now been called for Hillary.

Given the portion of the remaining votes in Jefferson County, its going to be a fairly narrow win vote wise, but still very helpful for Hillary at this point in terms of media narrative and optics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Kentucky has now been called for Hillary.

Given the portion of the remaining votes in Jefferson County, its going to be a fairly narrow win vote wise, but still very helpful for Hillary at this point in terms of media narrative and optics.

Called by who, and based on what?

Last I heard, it was literally about a .1% difference.

Anyway, while a loss in Kentucky would be disappointing, it was also predictable. That its this close is somewhat surprising. As long as we take Oregon I won't be too sad tonight.

Edit: Just checked and CNN is still saying its too close to call in Kentucky.

[Flagg]

Is anyone else getting a hardcore "Cult of Personality" vibe from the really hardcore BernieBros (mostly on FB, not so much here)? I remember how obnoxious the Clinton supports could, and often were during the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, with Bill sometimes coming out with some truly vile dog whistling while things were still up in the air and with many female (and some) male 'Hillary or Die' (whish I'd thought that one up 8 years ago ) douchebags vowing not to support, let alone vote, for Obama?

I remember fanatical Obama bots being a more of a thing, and a lot more annoying. Though I didn't have personal contact with many Hillary supporters at the time, so that may be a perspective thing.

That said, I don't think cult of personality is really the right term so much as a bunch of obsessive individuals. Many of them with ego problems and a pronounced need to have their way.

I remember a lot of Obama supporters wanting Clinton out before she had no path to the nomination and whinging about Superdelegates. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. Thank Christ he quit, too. I mean what a goddamned arrogant stupid asshat. Did he think he could keep getting away with all that shit he was doing and never get caught? Talk about hubris. But when it was down to Clinton and Obama and Clinton stayed in longer than she had no numerical possibility to win is when I noticed her supporters getting worse.

[maraxus2]

Excuse me?

Leaving aside the argument that Sanders' people did nothing improper by trying to effect the results, because others are handling that, do you mean to suggest that this somehow excuses everything the Clinton campaign did, or false allegations of political violence against the Sanders campaign? Or that these things are somehow equivalent?

I don't care what Bernie did. The Nevada Democratic Party crossed a fucking line, and that would be true even if they had video of Sanders boasting about committing fraud (which they obviously don't).

Sorry, idiocy of your caliber cannot be excused.

Sanders' delegates made an active attempt to overturn an election result - an election that he did not win and was not going to win - by verbally abusing Clinton supporters. His supporters are now making death threats against a duly-elected Democratic Party Chair. Bernie went from being righteously angry about Trump's supporters causing and inciting violence two months ago, to being mealy-mouthed and *BUT BOTH SIDES* today. That's not what you call character.

Hide behind your concern-trolling all you want, but now we know exactly what you are. You're a Sanders hack. This is not a bad thing; I'm a hack. I self-identify as a hack. Hell, I'm a professional hack. But I don't pretend to be otherwise. You're trying to pull this bullshit while being pretending to be a disinterested observer. It's not going to work.

It's not "overturning the results", it's the next step in the process, and the results can change at each stage. Don't blame one candidate or the other for a broken system. It's a three-step process. Might as well call Cruz's efforts to get delegates friendly to his cause appointed in Colorado as pledged-Trump delegates "immoral". RIght now there are multiple stories, each of which blames one side or the other. Rather than believe one or the other entirely, I'm inclined to believe that most of the most outrageous things each side claims are probably outliers, while still thinking the whole process is abegefuckt.

If you hold, as you do, that caucuses are stupid and don't represent the will of the voters effectively, then you can't actually believe that the results of the first stage of the caucus are sacrosanct. That's self-contradictory.

Cruz's efforts to pull the same kind of bullshit in Colorado were immoral. Even worse, they were extremely bad politics. Voters hate this kind of cloak-and-dagger bullshit. That's probably why he lost by such a huge margin in Indiana.

You can be opposed to the caucus system and still think that this reeks of hypocritcal horseshit. Sanders has been going around calling the "Democratic Establishment" a bunch of unethical corrupt autocrats for months now. He's been portraying himself as the white knight who will save the Will of the People (despite getting, you know, fewer votes). He's been bemoaning "politics as usual." And yet, and yet, his campaign tries to pull this kind of nonsense, and he refuses to disavow it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't play hard-ball politics (which I'm all for, btw) at the same time time that you're pissing and moaning about how hard-ball politics isn't fair. That's your self-contradiction, not mine.