2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumpdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And so was the caller Erin who called right before Nina was on.
Erin said she had been there 14 hours with her physician husband and her 2 kids, 10 and 14. She saw no violence whatsoever. And Nina said she had been there for 8 hours and had seen no violence.
When you hear those 2 witnesses say virtually the same thing, you get the idea that nothing happened.
Especially Erin, she gave a very clear, floors eye narrative of what happened and how it went down. When you hear it told by someone who experienced it, what that chairwoman did was horrible.
She said the lady wouldn't allow them to make motions. At one time the chairwoman gave them a very short time to get some amount of signatures (or something like that). A task that was virtually impossible. But her husband did it. But she would not accept them anyway.
Total ramrodding. Disgusting.
It is INFURIATING to hear people say that the booing was disgusting and completely pass over that disgusting display by the chairwoman.
Talk about upside down priorities.
G_j
(40,366 posts)It's helpful to hear an eyewitness account from someone who was there for the entire time.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I guess it's fitting for a candidate who is losing the nomination in a landslide. When she lost in Ohio did her supporters resort to conspiracy theories and death threats too? Maybe that's where the idea came from.
G_j
(40,366 posts)not sure what losing an election in the past has to with the veracity of her account.