2016 Postmortem

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)

108. Why are you repeating lies? There are NO ACTUAL ACCUSATIONS from Sanders

Reply to aspirant (Reply #107)

Thu May 19, 2016, 05:35 PM

May 2016

people who are involved. Why are you pretending as if there are? Why are you trying to deceive people this way?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wonder what rules the Bernie people wanted to change so badly. [View all] YouDig May 2016 OP

They wanted their voice vote to count. Is that a lot to ask? highprincipleswork May 2016 #1

It did count, they were just outnumbered by Hillary supporters. YouDig May 2016 #3

But they yelled louder BeyondGeography May 2016 #6

Exactly. And they recorded those yells from a microphone in the middle of their yelling section! YouDig May 2016 #7

Maybe they should go to a different way of counting when there is this much disagreement. highprincipleswork May 2016 #9

The minority was complaining because they were in the minority. YouDig May 2016 #13

"Reinstate the 58" count'em aspirant May 2016 #37

The 58 weren't registered Democrats, as determined by a panel with 50% Bernie and 50% YouDig May 2016 #42

Present the 58 registration documents and their personal interviews aspirant May 2016 #55

a panel composed of 50% SBS supporters made that decision. But foolish CTs abound. bettyellen May 2016 #76

Show us the 3 stages of the 58 documented registrations. aspirant May 2016 #78

Show us the SBS supporters who made those decisions complaining about how it happened. They are not bettyellen May 2016 #95

"Reinstate the 58" and provide registrations for all 3 stages aspirant May 2016 #99

oh wow, more bullshit memes. way to go, team! bettyellen May 2016 #103

Why the cover-up, simply produce all the documents aspirant May 2016 #105

No one officially involved is making accusations- when it is just CT loving internet posters doing bettyellen May 2016 #106

Why do you promote secrecy? aspirant May 2016 #107

Why are you repeating lies? There are NO ACTUAL ACCUSATIONS from Sanders bettyellen May 2016 #108

Hiding the truth is the grand deception aspirant May 2016 #109

You think there was a "grand deception" and SBS campaign workers are in on it? Because they bettyellen May 2016 #115

Documents were fine in stage1 and 2, aspirant May 2016 #118

Ask the SBS people who decertified their own delegates why THEY did that. LOL. bettyellen May 2016 #119

Lol. Nt seabeyond May 2016 #73

But at the wrong time! scscholar May 2016 #104

They then asked for a person by person count. This was at the very outset of the convention. And it highprincipleswork May 2016 #8

What were they voting about? Do you even know? Does anyone? YouDig May 2016 #10

"Reinstate the 58" then count aspirant May 2016 #39

Seriously, how much is the Brock pac paying and for what. emsimon33 May 2016 #50

I have come to the conclusion that Hillary has outsourced her comments J_J_ May 2016 #63

Yeah Demsrule86 May 2016 #116

I guess it's Brock o'Clock somewhere... Matt_in_STL May 2016 #2

Any that allows a bernie loss is unsatisfactory DrDan May 2016 #4

...and Credentials Committees get pretty dull when they're equally composed from both sides... brooklynite May 2016 #5

I read a comment last night that the rules were in effect since 2008 St Aug girl May 2016 #11

You read in a comment last night? YouDig May 2016 #14

"Reinstate the 58" they showed up aspirant May 2016 #44

Actually they didn't. After the credentials committee realized that they weren't eligible because YouDig May 2016 #46

No complaints from the 58 and none from Sanders. Case closed, imo. randome May 2016 #56

Prove it, present the registration documents aspirant May 2016 #59

They didn't have the registration documents, that's the point. They weren't registered Dems, YouDig May 2016 #60

"They didn't have the registration documents" aspirant May 2016 #62

They didn't become delegates, because they didn't have the credentials. YouDig May 2016 #65

This is the third step and they passed the first 2 with outstanding credentials aspirant May 2016 #66

Apparently not outstanding since they weren't registered Dems. YouDig May 2016 #67

Prove it aspirant May 2016 #69

The bipartisan credentials committee checked. You think they lied? YouDig May 2016 #70

We don't know, aspirant May 2016 #72

Because it might be a big conspiracy! Yuuuuuuge conspiracy! YouDig May 2016 #74

Or it might be evil trickery as part of an evil plan, aspirant May 2016 #79

There is proof, there credentials committe. But proof never stops a determined YouDig May 2016 #80

Good, then provide the proof at all 3 stages aspirant May 2016 #81

See what I mean, there's always a way to keep the conspiracy theory going. YouDig May 2016 #82

Proof overpowers any conspiracy, waiting aspirant May 2016 #83

Yes, but you don't have proof. That's why you resort to conspiracy. YouDig May 2016 #84

You don't have proof, so aspirant May 2016 #85

I do, the credentials committee. Do you have a credentials committee? YouDig May 2016 #86

Good bring forth the documents, otherwise it's just words aspirant May 2016 #87

So that's a "no". Score: one credentials committee for me, zero for you. YouDig May 2016 #88

Bring forth the documents or you have no score aspirant May 2016 #89

But I do! I have a credentials committee. You have zero. And also no documents. Nothing! YouDig May 2016 #92

You have no documets, therefore you have "nothing" aspirant May 2016 #94

A credentials committee is not "nothing". Nothing is what you have. YouDig May 2016 #96

"Reinstate the 58" aspirant May 2016 #100

They used the same basic rules, nothing was changed. joshcryer May 2016 #16

Yes, and a judge found nothing wrong with the rules Hortensis May 2016 #90

Be honest! You don't "wonder" anything, you're just pushing a narrative. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #12

Be honest. You have no idea what the rules issue was, and don't care, you're just mad YouDig May 2016 #15

Which Bernie people told him to be mad, a list of names aspirant May 2016 #47

Since you appear as a new trollist type, you don't know I'm an Non-committed Democratic Poli-Sci guy TheBlackAdder May 2016 #101

Since this thread is about rules, isn't there some rule here about calling people trolls? YouDig May 2016 #102

Applying critical reading, I did not call you one. I said you seem to appear like one of that ilk. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #117

More than anything they wanted a fair vote on the issue of whether or not to change. aikoaiko May 2016 #17

And they got that. Any amendment to the rules required a 2/3rds majority, and the YouDig May 2016 #19

The voice counts were dubious and they wanted a more careful count. aikoaiko May 2016 #22

OK, but the chair is the person who determines that, according to the rules which have been YouDig May 2016 #24

We'll never know if the chair got it wrong and that was the point of a more careful count which was aikoaiko May 2016 #34

If we do math we can. Because if less than 50% of the delegates were for Bernie, they YouDig May 2016 #38

You seem to be missing the point. Robert's Rules of Order is about process and deliberation aikoaiko May 2016 #53

Robert's Rules of Order are not been in place for the Nevada convention, nor have they been YouDig May 2016 #58

I'm not surprised you didn't know this, but RRO due have a place in the convention rules aikoaiko May 2016 #61

As a fallback, behind their specific rules. But there is no indication that the rules they YouDig May 2016 #64

"Reinstate the 58" and "less" becomes more aspirant May 2016 #49

Fact Fail. Voting scheduled for 10:0@ am - voice vote started at 9:30 am IdaBriggs May 2016 #18

Not close to true. The convention started at 9, not 10. 10 was when registration closed, which YouDig May 2016 #20

That's not what I've read and watched in the reports. Since we disagree IdaBriggs May 2016 #21

Here is the official call to convention. YouDig May 2016 #23

From Your Link -- (page 2) -- IdaBriggs May 2016 #68

Did you check page 1? In boldface? Right at the front? YouDig May 2016 #71

"reinstate the 58" and "more" becomes less aspirant May 2016 #75

Again, we are arguing facts and we disagree about them. IdaBriggs May 2016 #77

Why do a pointless floor count except to waste time? YouDig May 2016 #91

IdaBriggs, you are arguing against all honest Hortensis May 2016 #93

"Reinstate the 58" aspirant May 2016 #98

If you are doing votes, much less voice votes while the people that vote are still registering TheKentuckian May 2016 #110

The schedule is posted weeks in advance. Anyone who wanted to participate in the procedural votes YouDig May 2016 #112

If you vote when people are still registering to be delegates then you are trying to get over. TheKentuckian May 2016 #113

That's absolutely not true, it happens all the time, the rules were the same as in years past. YouDig May 2016 #114

No honor. No decency. No honesty. TheKentuckian May 2016 #120

I believe the party chair was the one to change the rules. mmonk May 2016 #25

Nope. The provisional rules were decided well in advance, and were the same as had been YouDig May 2016 #32

They didn't want change, they wanted the changes entered legally, with Roberts Rules of Order. ViseGrip May 2016 #26

There were no changes. The rules were the same as had been used since 2008. YouDig May 2016 #29

They wanted the rules to be followed AgingAmerican May 2016 #27

And they were, to the word. Hillary people just had them outnumbered. YouDig May 2016 #28

The made up the rules on the fly AgingAmerican May 2016 #31

Nope, the provisional rules were created weeks in advance and posted on the internet for everyone. YouDig May 2016 #33

And the fraud they have committed will sink them in the General election AgingAmerican May 2016 #35

There was no fraud. You have a habit of being wrong. YouDig May 2016 #40

Apparently openly committing fraud is their strategy AgingAmerican May 2016 #43

"Reinstate the 58" "less" becomes more aspirant May 2016 #51

I wonder why people bother to reply to you. Canned talking points and all. libdem4life May 2016 #30

The Sanders Campaign did not comply with the rules and were unhappy when they lost Gothmog May 2016 #36

Bernie delegates did not show up so the others threw a childish fit. riversedge May 2016 #41

Let them put whatever they want into the platform...it's not a legally binding document anotherproletariat May 2016 #45

I'd say so too, write whatever you want in the platform, just no more disrupting and death threats. YouDig May 2016 #48

Where are the "death threat" arrests, it's a crime? aspirant May 2016 #54

Oh, no. They'll get something, we agree on so much, Hortensis May 2016 #97

Major thread FAIL. dchill May 2016 #52

Know what this reminds me of? cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #57

This post is kinda 'trolly'... JSup May 2016 #111