NV Democratic State Convention

[Fusionmunster]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

What would be an acceptable proof, since a tweet from a reporter isn't enough for you guys?

A tweet is not proof so your right when you say it isnt enough.

[Joe Republic]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

He's half-right.  The credentials committee's minority report stated what jfern just claimed.  The reason why they were excluded is because they weren't elected as delegates at either of the two previous caucus conventions, which was very clearly outlined as necessary from the very beginning.

You can't just show up to the state convention if you weren't elected as a state delegate or alternate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Final final final credential report, after realignments:

Hillary 1695
Bernie 1662

How did Hillary not gain realignments after the show the Bernie people put on?  I can't imagine they didn't sway at least a few opinions in the Hillary direction.  If I'd walked in their neutral I sure as hell would have gone over to Clinton.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but this is now the third event at which supporters for each candidate have taken several hours out of their day to show up and show their support.  That has a tendency to weed out the lukewarm supporters leaving only the hardliners. 

Agreed.  Back in the 1988 election I was selected as an uncommitted delegate to the county convention at my precinct caucus.  That convention was such a disorganized mess I left before it was finished and have never been to an official party function of any party since.  (I had a preference, but it wasn't strong, and they wanted a young person [I was the only young person at the precinct caucus.], so I was chosen out of the people who weren't for the people who had enuf support at the precinct meeting to get committed delegates to the next stage.)

[Lyin' Steve]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

What would be an acceptable proof, since a tweet from a reporter isn't enough for you guys?

The tweet you cited, which is your one proof that any of these crazy things you're claiming actually happened, doesn't even directly say anything.  All the reporter does is quote Erin Bilbray (Sanders superdelegate)'s speech.

[Fusionmunster]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

He's half-right.  The credentials committee's minority report stated what jfern just claimed.  The reason why they were excluded is because they weren't elected as delegates at either of the two previous caucus conventions, which was very clearly outlined as necessary from the very beginning.

You can't just show up to the state convention if you weren't elected as a state delegate or alternate.

Makes sense but it wont stop people from claiming the convention was stolen i'd bet.

[Lyin' Steve]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

He's half-right.  The credentials committee's minority report stated what jfern just claimed.  The reason why they were excluded is because they weren't elected as delegates at either of the two previous caucus conventions, which was very clearly outlined as necessary from the very beginning.

You can't just show up to the state convention if you weren't elected as a state delegate or alternate.

If I show up to the electoral college in January and try to cast a vote and they tell me to go jump in a lake, can I too claim that democracy is in shambles and I'm being disenfranchised^TM?

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's no wonder that Sanders' followers are so ignorant about party rules.
Most of them aren't even Democrats.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is so painful to watch. Here we have someone who is actually at the convention and who has no reason or incentive to lie to a bunch of internet posters about what is actually going on, and someone else who is getting worked into a frenzy by a bunch of fellow delusional perpetual-outragers huffing and puffing to each other on Twitter and Reddit and who have likely altered the actual story a half-dozen times as it passes from one irrational actor to the next across the interwebs.

Screw off. Joe lied when he said the rules committee agreed to any rules.

Who should we believe, Jfern and his twitter sources or Joe who was actually there?

And regardless, the delegates that showed up all got counted so im not sure why a debate about a rule change matters anyways.

Nope, 64 Bernie delegates got excluded.

Gonna need you to back that up.

What would be an acceptable proof, since a tweet from a reporter isn't enough for you guys?

We'd need a lot more than a singular Tweet. Joe was actually there. Or are you going to accuse Joe Republic of lying to further the evil $hillary KKKlinton agenda?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's the vote. The nos sound louder. I believe it needed a 2/3rds majority to pass.

https://www.periscope.tv/w/1ynJOrQWgDlGR

[This account no longer in use.]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

[Lyin' Steve]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

If anything the yeas sound louder.  Spreading out horizontally is a pro strat.  The Bernie people hurt themselves by crowding together in a big cluster.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here's the vote. The nos sound louder.

Silly me didn't know that votes actually make sounds.

[Joe Republic]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

Yes, the Nays needed 2/3 to reject the temporary rules and impose their own.  The voice vote was about even, so they failed.  What don't you understand about this?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

Yes, the Nays needed 2/3 to reject the temporary rules and impose their own.  The voice vote was about even, so they failed.  What don't you understand about this?

What sort of vote only requires a 1/3rds vote in the affirmative? The rules committee didn't adopt any rules, so there couldn't be any rules without a 2/3rds vote.

[DrScholl]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

[Joe Republic]

Good grief, now we're listening to the micro-speeches from the dozens of candidates for national delegate.  Surprise, surprise, every other Bernie candidate speaking isn't on the list of official candidates and is asking for write-in votes, because they didn't realize there's a process for that too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

Obviously Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee, butHillary people seem to want to stick it to Bernie people, and assume that they'll vote for her. Hell no!

[This account no longer in use.]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

Yes, the Nays needed 2/3 to reject the temporary rules and impose their own.  The voice vote was about even, so they failed.  What don't you understand about this?

What sort of vote only requires a 1/3rds vote in the affirmative? The rules committee didn't adopt any rules, so there couldn't be any rules without a 2/3rds vote.

Listen, Jfern. I know you must be angry because your candidate lost a delegate or two, but it's already over. It's been over for a while now. March 15 was really the finishing blow. Try to accept that.

[Joe Republic]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

Yes, the Nays needed 2/3 to reject the temporary rules and impose their own.  The voice vote was about even, so they failed.  What don't you understand about this?

What sort of vote only requires a 1/3rds vote in the affirmative? The rules committee didn't adopt any rules, so there couldn't be any rules without a 2/3rds vote.

Why are you still posting in this thread if you don't understand the process in the first place?  I thought I had explained it as clearly as I could, multiple times?

[Landslide Lyndon]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

Obviously Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee, butHillary people seem to want to stick it to Bernie people, and assume that they'll vote for her. Hell no!

Good. If the Democrats don't want to have a Donald Trump in their hands then they ought to purge the party from left-wing nuts like you, just like the Republicans did in the 60's with the Birchers.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

Obviously Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee, butHillary people seem to want to stick it to Bernie people, and assume that they'll vote for her. Hell no!

Good. If the Democrats don't want to have a Donald Trump in their hands then they ought to purge the party from left-wing nuts like you, just like the Republicans did in the 60's with the Birchers.  

You can't take away our power, because WE DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!!!

[This account no longer in use.]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

Obviously Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee, butHillary people seem to want to stick it to Bernie people, and assume that they'll vote for her. Hell no!

Good. If the Democrats don't want to have a Donald Trump in their hands then they ought to purge the party from left-wing nuts like you, just like the Republicans did in the 60's with the Birchers.  

That's just as bad of an idea as Jfern's ludicrous 'all liberal all the time' beliefs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The volumes are about equal. Chill out, Jfern.

It needed a 2/3rds majority. Even if it only needed a majority, "about even" doesn't cut it.

Yes, the Nays needed 2/3 to reject the temporary rules and impose their own.  The voice vote was about even, so they failed.  What don't you understand about this?

What sort of vote only requires a 1/3rds vote in the affirmative? The rules committee didn't adopt any rules, so there couldn't be any rules without a 2/3rds vote.

Why are you still posting in this thread if you don't understand the process in the first place?  I thought I had explained it as clearly as I could, multiple times?

I know the process. A 2/3rds majority is required for rules if they aren't from the rules committee.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All this nitpicking and nagging really is pointless since this race has been mathematically over since Super Tuesday. It's really been done since South Carolina.

Obviously Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee, butHillary people seem to want to stick it to Bernie people, and assume that they'll vote for her. Hell no!

Good. If the Democrats don't want to have a Donald Trump in their hands then they ought to purge the party from left-wing nuts like you, just like the Republicans did in the 60's with the Birchers.  

You can't take away our power, because WE DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!!!

Thank God for that.