NV Democratic State Convention

[Lyin' Steve]

I think it is safe to say we have seen the last of Nevada as an early state.

I don't follow.

A state who's process dissolves into chaos should not be giving an early spot on the calendar. Besides rumors are Nevada is going to be replaced by Colorado or Arizona as first in the West.

Nevada is always so irrelevant anyway.  In 2012 and 2008 nobody even cared about it.  Arizona would be a much better early state since it's a hotbed of so many immigration and economic issues.

Nina Turner of Ohio (guest speaker for Bernie) now speaking, and the Clinton side noticeably listening respectfully and clapping her in welcome.  Hmm, slight difference from Barbara Boxer's welcome.

Yeah this was my experience too, at my caucus the Sanders people who spoke were all politely applauded by the very respectful Clinton people standing around me (mostly women in their 50s and 60s and some younger parents).  The kids on the Sanders side of the room kept shouting at the Clinton people and talking during their speeches and seemed confused and hesitant about whether they should clap or not or they would smirk and say things like "I guess we're clapping now!"

[Lyin' Steve]

Shadows,
This is Atlas, not /r/sandersforpresident.  Please don't just copy and paste comments from Reddit onto Atlas.  We're better than that (except you).
Also, this is such an embarrassing incident for the Bernie people.  If you're wondering why Hillary and the DNC are trying to keep a proportional amount of these people from having roles in Hillary's convention, this is why.  It's just chaos, mass obnoxiousness and time-wasting self-righteous rule-twiddling as they try to accomplish their futile goal of getting 1 or 2 more delegates from a state they lost in a race where they're behind by 300 delegates.

This isn't the Constitutional Convention or Bretton Woods.  Nothing of consequence happens at any of these events, including the convention itself, other than ultimately making Hillary Clinton the nominee.  There's no point dragging your feet and maximizing the friction and unpleasantness for everyone.  The rest of the party isn't trying to "disenfranchise you."  They just want these trivial, ceremonial processes to go as smoothly as possible so they can go home.  Throwing a mass temper-tantrum and arguing about minutiae in the rules that won't change anything is a quick way to make everyone really really hate you, and in service of what?

[Lyin' Steve]

You lost a delegate you weren't supposed to have in the first place. Who cares?

Especially since it will be irrelevant regardless, lol.

You guys can calm down, Bernie's paragraph in the history books is already safely assured. Nobody will care if he loses by 300 delegates or 298 delegates.

lol, he won't get a paragraph.  Gary Hart doesn't even show up in history books and he came a whole hell of a lot closer than Bernie.

[Lyin' Steve]

Roberta Gustave Lange, a Clinton supporter and Chair of the Democratic State Party, changed the rules without a 2/3rds majority quorum

Meanwhile, what happened in actual reality is that a rules committee of 3 Hillary supporters and 3 Bernie supporters jointly created the temporary rules for the convention some time ago.  The vote to change the temporary rules to some other set of permanent rules required a 2/3 majority, which of course failed, so the temporary rules became permanent.

Please don't believe what you read on r/Sandersforpresident

Clinton hacks are known to openly lie to make Bernie people look bad. It is not about 1 or 2 delegates, it is about democracy & people in line not being allowed to vote.

Either ways, this means sh** in the final count, Hillary won anyways, she had a huge lead. But when you screw your opponent & kill democracy to get your way, it is not a great thing. I mean she was winning by 300, her people didn't need to do this. Also the hillary supporters have shown a more deplorable side than trump supporters.

This is the kind of thing that worries me about the general.  People on the outside have no idea what's going on in Sandersworld and just assume they'll all come vote for Hillary because "of course they will, Hillary is pretty close to Sanders and Trump is a maniac, it's just like Clinton in 2008."  But within Sandersworld they just lie to themselves again and again and have this whole alternate history of the election, that's completely fictional, where Hillary cheated and destroyed democracy to knife fight her way to a nomination that was rightfully Sanders'.  If you live in a bubble where the lie is just repeated over and over and over and over and over again you end up believing it and making it a core part of your identity, especially if you're one of these young kids who just got into politics.

It's just like the far right wing in the 90s.  The far right created this bubble of fiction where the Clintons were murdering people and stealing billions of dollars and every bad thing that happened was because of some horrible crime they'd committed.  Meanwhile the Clintons were just normal people for the most part except for their open marriage and some sleazy things they did to raise money like selling white house furniture or renting out the Lincoln bedroom.  Now once again we have it where Hillary is just a normal candidate for the most part but her opponents live in a total fantasy land where she's the queen of darkness.

[Lyin' Steve]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

I would feel the same way I felt about Kasich.  I was frustrated early on when the media wasn't treating him fairly, and especially after he did well in New Hampshire, but it became clear pretty soon that he just wasn't going to win and that it was his own fault, and we were stuck with Trump/Cruz.  I accepted that instead of pretending that he would have won if only independents were allowed to vote in Idaho or some other such process triviality.

[Lyin' Steve]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

[Lyin' Steve]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

On that note, as bad as caucuses are, at least Democrats don't have to deal with states outright suspending democracy and having party hacks assign the delegates. Yuck. The media's lack of outrage for this and instead cheerleading Cruz's campaign for being so "organized and disciplined!" and "knowing how to play the shadow game!" was disgusting.

Yeah, I wonder how much of this Sanders stuff is just riding the Trump train.  The allegations of corruption and anti-democratic theft have really gotten out of hand.  The difference of course is that Trump had an actual case.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Lyin' Steve]

Welp, now my facebook is blowing up about this.  AND it's at the top of Facebook Trending.  This is how the delusion happens, folks.  Get a bunch of left-wing blogs* to post hyperbolic language and outright lies, and say the media is biased and ignoring or lying about what happened.  Then a whole bunch of Bernie fans will share it all over facebook and work themselves up into a tizzy repeating the lies and hyperbole while adding their own.  The peer pressure and groupthink takes hold and soon enough everyone believes!  And the miserable fantasy world lives on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*actually some of these sources are more mainstream right-wing sources like The Daily Caller.  They're stirring the pot to help damage Hillary and the Bernie people are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

[Lyin' Steve]

Why would any delegates even be registered as independents?  You need to be a registered Democrat to vote in the caucuses in the first place.

They're just dumb.  Most of the 64 weren't even real delegates -- they "couldn't find their address or phone number in the list of registered delegates" or something like that... what I want to know is why Bernie would have had as many or more delegates than Hillary if some part of the 64 had been allowed in.  Did some of Hillary's people just not show up?

[Lyin' Steve]

And now it's the front page of RCP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/sanders_supporters_immediately_question_yeasnays_she_passed_it_before_we_even_said_no.html

The reporting is just a copy of what the Sanders supporter says in his video.  They claim she closed the convention without allowing adequate time for the nays to shout.  Even though the second video posted clearly shows that she allowed just as much time for the nays as she did for the ayes.

The comments are full of Sanders supporters and Trump supporters agreeing that the democratic party is dead and Clinton is a fascist and they will get their revenge in November.

What actually happened be damned!  Not sure what they hoped to accomplish by preventing the convention from closing.  Apparently she was rushing due to the casino hurrying to kick them all out because the Bernie people were getting too violent and it was close to a riot.  So much irony.

This is American politics today.  Lies just become truth by being repeated over and over and over until everyone believes them without checking on the facts.  Even if one lie is proven to be a lie, if you just tell enough lies then you can say "where there's smoke there's fire, there wouldn't be this many 'suspicious incidents' if there weren't some truth behind it."  This is the story of the Clintons' career so I'm sure it doesn't faze Hillary.  But it's very irritating to the rest of us nonetheless.

[Lyin' Steve]

The silence from Sanders on this is very telling.

Sanders is always silent on these things.  He only speaks up to offer a minimal, forced disavowal if the negative media coverage becomes overwhelming.  In this case, the media is either actively promoting the lies of the Sanders supporters for the sake of a good story or doing some sort of weasely even-handed "there was confusion over the rules", so there's no risk to Sanders in staying silent.

It says a lot about his character.  Of course if you've been paying attention these were things you already knew about his character.

[Lyin' Steve]

Bernie sure has a lot of work to do to bring a lot of his deranged minions back to the realm of sanity, much less back into the Democratic fold.

For real, if he doesn't help him out these people are going to go through the rest of their lives cynical and hateful about the Democratic party and the political process, always believing the election was stolen from them and that 80% of America hates them.  When you shut down a cult you have to ease them back into society, you can't just take the money and run while leaving them to fend for themselves waiting for the rapture in a basement.

Unfortunately it looks like Bernie is gonna Jim Jones the whole thing and burn his supporters down in flames with him at the convention.

[Lyin' Steve]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actual voicemail.  This is the second mp3 that was posted earlier.

Here was the Sanders campaign's response to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, "you deserved it for not treating us like royalty.... PS I hope you burn for this"

[Lyin' Steve]

Bernie's not responsible for the conduct of these people, obviously.  I don't think the onus is on him to drop out because of a few assholes, though I do wish he'd step up and disavow this.

Actually he is. His campaign has been inciting these crazies with all the talk about how "rigged" the primary is or their whining about superdelegates and closed primaries.

And why are some people surprised that Sanders hasn't denounced these thugs? He just became a Democrat for convenience, he doesn't feel any commitment to the welfare of the party. He wants to keep them as a personal army, so he will continue to tolerate this kind of behavior. Who knows, maybe he will make a statement too about how passionate they are and how much they love their country.

No, he isn't.  He never incited violence or told his supporters to behave this way, unlike Trump.  And he ran as a Democrat because he vowed not to run as an independent and split Democrat voters in the general.

I hate to sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, but it's a simple fact that low-level people within Bernie's own campaign run r/sandersforpresident and other social media outlets and go around posting online and inciting this kind of madness.  Sanders emptied his wallet for Revolution Media to astroturf online for him, which is where all this stuff is coming from.  That's all behind the curtain.  Out on stage, the upper echelons of his campaign issue complaints and ominous warnings about how rigged the system is and how unfair the DNC has been treating him.  They issue inaccurate information to their supporters about how the conventions work so that when the DNC follows the rules his supporters will lose their minds and think they're being cheated.  They hear about these insane riots and bullying and threats from his supporters and the campaign's response is always something like "well maybe you should ask why they are behaving that way, there is an element of truth to their complaints."  Sanders refuses to condemn the extremist behavior of his supporters in anything other than the weakest possible terms, on those rare occasions that he doesn't applaud them or stay silent.  Meanwhile he, of course, contributes heavily to the negative tone of the campaign by continually lobbing his own attacks at Clinton.  They're the biggest applause/boo lines in his stump speech at this point.

Unrelated, but here's a very comprehensive, minute-by-minute, firsthand account of what actually happened at the convention:  https://medium.com/@mamajeanab/the-nevada-state-democratic-convention-c55076db43a#.40unq4kfx
Good luck finding this as a source in CNN or Fox News or Russia Today articles.  They'd much rather quote rabid commenters on Reddit.

[Lyin' Steve]

As an example, from the article I just posted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The campaign does this sleazy, incendiary, dishonest stuff at the local level and hopes no one will notice because people will only pay attention to Bernie.  And for the most part, it works.  Only people who really pay attention to detail, like me, notice.

[Lyin' Steve]

This letter from the attorney for the NSDP to the DNC is required reading:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also from the full letter (https://www.scribd.com/doc/312844982/160516-Letter-DNC-RBC-NVDemsConvention), about the Sanders campaign's direct involvement in, and responsibility for, the riots:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lyin' Steve]

Oh here comes Jfern... and it looks like he's actually trying to argue that what happened in Nevada was ok and the Clinton people are lying about it.  Or at least they're lying about the chair being thrown.  Because they really need to tell lies about what happened since it obviously wasn't bad enough.

Jfern, the hall was huge and crowded, it's not inconceivable that nobody would have a smartphone focused on one random person before they threw a chair to get the footage.  In the video you showed, some guy is clearly about to throw a chair when someone else tears it out of his hands.  Since someone was caught on camera about to throw a chair, that makes me more willing to believe that at another time and another place during the riots someone did throw a chair.  Clearly some of your Sanders people, like that guy, were willing to do it and wanted to do it.

But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  So let's say the press is reporting that someone threw a chair when really all that happened is that someone almost threw a chair.  That's a minor detail that's like 0.01% of the whole story.  You win, dumbass, the other 99.9% still stands.  Your candidate is a rabble-rousing coward, his supporters are frothing maniacs, and his campaign feeds them lies to power their paranoid delusions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-dodges-question-about-convention-disturbance-687328835563
Here's your brave hero.  Such integrity and passion for the truth!

[Lyin' Steve]

Oh here comes Jfern... and it looks like he's actually trying to argue that what happened in Nevada was ok and the Clinton people are lying about it.  Or at least they're lying about the chair being thrown.  Because they really need to tell lies about what happened since it obviously wasn't bad enough.

Jfern, the hall was huge and crowded, it's not inconceivable that nobody would have a smartphone focused on one random person before they threw a chair to get the footage.  In the video you showed, some guy is clearly about to throw a chair when someone else tears it out of his hands.  Since someone was caught on camera about to throw a chair, that makes me more willing to believe that at another time and another place during the riots someone did throw a chair.  Clearly some of your Sanders people, like that guy, were willing to do it and wanted to do it.

But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  So let's say the press is reporting that someone threw a chair when really all that happened is that someone almost threw a chair.  That's a minor detail that's like 0.01% of the whole story.  You win, dumbass, the other 99.9% still stands.  Your candidate is a rabble-rousing coward, his supporters are frothing maniacs, and his campaign feeds them lies to power their paranoid delusions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-dodges-question-about-convention-disturbance-687328835563
Here's your brave hero.  Such integrity and passion for the truth!

What other 99.9%? This is a straight-up pants on fire swiftboating of Bernie supporters.

Here's part of it.  Inexcusable.  Shame on you for even trying to defend this.
You should have stayed silent.

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange

[Lyin' Steve]

Oh here comes Jfern... and it looks like he's actually trying to argue that what happened in Nevada was ok and the Clinton people are lying about it.  Or at least they're lying about the chair being thrown.  Because they really need to tell lies about what happened since it obviously wasn't bad enough.

Jfern, the hall was huge and crowded, it's not inconceivable that nobody would have a smartphone focused on one random person before they threw a chair to get the footage.  In the video you showed, some guy is clearly about to throw a chair when someone else tears it out of his hands.  Since someone was caught on camera about to throw a chair, that makes me more willing to believe that at another time and another place during the riots someone did throw a chair.  Clearly some of your Sanders people, like that guy, were willing to do it and wanted to do it.

But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  So let's say the press is reporting that someone threw a chair when really all that happened is that someone almost threw a chair.  That's a minor detail that's like 0.01% of the whole story.  You win, dumbass, the other 99.9% still stands.  Your candidate is a rabble-rousing coward, his supporters are frothing maniacs, and his campaign feeds them lies to power their paranoid delusions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-dodges-question-about-convention-disturbance-687328835563
Here's your brave hero.  Such integrity and passion for the truth!

What other 99.9%? This is a straight-up pants on fire swiftboating of Bernie supporters.

Here's part of it.  Inexcusable.  Shame on you for even trying to defend this.
You should have stayed silent.

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange

"Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is — we don’t want them." - Bernie Sanders

Your argument was that all the "Nevada Hillary supporters" (fyi, basically everybody on this board has come to grips with reality except you at this point) were lying and making things up and that nothing inappropriate occurred.  Are you now conceding the point that inappropriate things did occur in Nevada and shifting to arguing that Sanders isn't personally responsible for them?  Just wanted to nail down that you lost your original argument before engaging your new one.

[Lyin' Steve]

Oh here comes Jfern... and it looks like he's actually trying to argue that what happened in Nevada was ok and the Clinton people are lying about it.  Or at least they're lying about the chair being thrown.  Because they really need to tell lies about what happened since it obviously wasn't bad enough.

Jfern, the hall was huge and crowded, it's not inconceivable that nobody would have a smartphone focused on one random person before they threw a chair to get the footage.  In the video you showed, some guy is clearly about to throw a chair when someone else tears it out of his hands.  Since someone was caught on camera about to throw a chair, that makes me more willing to believe that at another time and another place during the riots someone did throw a chair.  Clearly some of your Sanders people, like that guy, were willing to do it and wanted to do it.

But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  So let's say the press is reporting that someone threw a chair when really all that happened is that someone almost threw a chair.  That's a minor detail that's like 0.01% of the whole story.  You win, dumbass, the other 99.9% still stands.  Your candidate is a rabble-rousing coward, his supporters are frothing maniacs, and his campaign feeds them lies to power their paranoid delusions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-dodges-question-about-convention-disturbance-687328835563
Here's your brave hero.  Such integrity and passion for the truth!

What other 99.9%? This is a straight-up pants on fire swiftboating of Bernie supporters.

Here's part of it.  Inexcusable.  Shame on you for even trying to defend this.
You should have stayed silent.

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange

"Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is — we don’t want them." - Bernie Sanders

Your argument was that all the "Nevada Hillary supporters" (fyi, basically everybody on this board has come to grips with reality except you at this point) were lying and making things up and that nothing inappropriate occurred.  Are you now conceding the point that inappropriate things did occur in Nevada and shifting to arguing that Sanders isn't personally responsible for them?  Just wanted to nail down that you lost your original argument before engaging your new one.

The chair thing was a lie. Who cares whether some people who may or may not have been Bernie supporters, and Bernie doesn't want their support anyways, left harassing voice messages. That's not violence like the liars claimed. And that wasn't at the convention. The claim was there was violence at the convention. That some supposed Bernie supporters made some harassing calls at a different point in time is not violence at the convention. Bernie pointed out that one of his campaign offices in Nevada had shots fired at it. That was real violence.

Hundreds of people left death threats for whatserface and her family and vandalized the DNC headquarters after the convention was over.  Do you really think those people, in an absolute raging mob at the convention, did absolutely nothing violent?  Why do you think the sheriff and a bunch of police had to show up to force them to leave?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AteQ391p4t4

You're "arguing" (your argument is just claiming that your imagination about an event you weren't at is more trustworthy than reporters who were actually there) about technicalities as though the fact that no direct violence was captured on the four or five twenty-second cell phone clips floating around the internet indicates that no violence occurred at any point in the twelve hours.  Oh except for that one clip where a woman's lying on the ground and some guy's getting dragged away while the PA says "we need a medic in the front..."

You're pathetic.  You're in denial about something the rest of the world knows happened and trying to argue about little bits of information on the margin so your brain won't have to accept that you and your campaign are in a deep deep pit of moral depravity.  And that's understandable, when you're in a cult your brain does all sorts of weird gymnastics to avoid accepting the truth.  I would urge you to seek professional help but it will all be over in a few weeks anyway so there's no real point.

[Lyin' Steve]

CNN is on the case:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this is CNN, so I don't know if the twenty-second audio clip with 1000 views they have right below this is what they're talking about, but in that clip Joan Kato just tells them to stay in the convention hall no matter what, never saying "take over" or "revolution" or any of the other words spoken.

Of course, CNN could be referring to two different audio tapes they have, but this is CNN and it's trash, so take it with a huge mountain of salt until they actually post their "take over" audio.