Here's the thing: If a supporter's anger disturbs you more than this, you are part of the problem:

[Bonobo]

It is unforgivable scumbag behavior worthy of comparison to the filthiest political shenanigans.

If you are bothered more by the anger of the people who reacted to this, you are indeed a problem that needs to be surmounted before the Democratic Party can once again claim the support of many of us.

I don't see it happening though. What I DO see happening is growth in the number of people who are disillusioned by party hacks and their cronies having it their own way and manipulating the political system.

[dchill]

1. Concisely and exactly correct!

[JimDandy]

2. + 1

[840high]

16. +2

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. I guess you were there and know what you are talking about of course.

[JackRiddler]

5. The video speaks volumes...

unlike the bogus reports about non-existent chair-throwing and violence. Well, those also speak volumes, about those who still repeat them after debunking.

[Bonobo]

6. Well, I'm now certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that YOU don't know WTF you're talking about.

"Casual Observer" was apparently a very accurate description of your nature.

[frylock]

45. Please do relay your first-hand account.

[JackRiddler]

4. The difference between the official from the podium being a dictator...

and some random drunk at the end raising a chair and then putting it down again.

But the response patterns are long ingrained. The 2000 election was stolen in Florida and then sealed with a goddamn judicial coup d'etat so unconstitutional that the SC decision even stated it could not be used as a precedent. And yet, 16 years later, there are those who still reflexively howl about Nader!

[dchill]

7. The problem with the Democratic party, and here on DU...

is that some of us are expecting a little too much democratic in our party. I grow fatigued of being befuddled - and royally pissed.

[joshcryer]

11. No, no, if there was a head count it would've gone the same way.

She went up to the podium with the knowledge of the delegates in the room. The head count would have taken several hours to perform, though. Invariably people would have left. Then people would have complained for another count. Clinton supporters did this once, kept doing head counts until enough Sanders supporters left they won. It was well documented here.

[JackRiddler]

13. "She went up... with knowledge of the delegates in the room."

Thousands present, people still coming in and accreditation disputes ongoing, and the totals so close? That would be a feat.

But maybe she had an idea of how close it was, and therefore preferred to pretend that there was a definitive yes when the no sounded as loud or louder.

[joshcryer]

18. She knew she had a simple majority to move the proceedings forward.

What's lame is that the 58 disqualified people never showed. It wasn't like they were there. They didn't show. Clinton got 93% of her delegates to show, Sanders was like 73%. But the minority report they gave made it seem like they were there and got disqualified.

They knew they were losing which is why this happened:

There was an attempted coup at that convention and it still blows my mind people are upset that the results reflect the will of the people on caucas day. You actually think not overturning the will of the people is undemocratic.

[jillan]

21. They had until 10 am to get inside the building. She was changing rules around 9:30.

There is video of all of this.

[joshcryer]

23. There's no rule that the preliminary rules passage happen at 10:00.

Since any modified rules would require 2/3rds passage and it was physically impossible for either side to get a 2/3rds majority in 30 minutes, they obviously made the decision to move the process forward a few minutes. Big deal.

[winter is coming]

14. It's interesting that you would mention the 2000 election.

The whipped-up frenzy over the "violence" at the NV convention reminds me so much of the Brooks Brothers riots. It was shown on TV, over and over, while the pundits kept saying we were having a constitutional crisis. Crisis, my ass. Ordinary people were going about their daily lives and there were jokes being made on the late night shows about how long everything was taking, but the "need" to "settle" the election was completely contrived.

And he we are again, with the media doing its damnedest to push a cooked narrative and imply that there's an urgent problem that needs to be solved immediately. I didn't buy the bullshit in 2000 and I'm not buying it now, either.

[joshcryer]

8. Sigh. They didn't have the 2/3rds vote to pass the petition.

I fully understand why people are angry, they aren't being treated respectfully, there was no head count. The positions weren't accepted. The preliminary vote was misunderstood.

In other words another day at a caucas.

[kiva]

9. And the motion for the recount

that made Roberta gavel down the convention? No misunderstanding, no lack of delegates - pure spite and manipulation on Lange's part.

[Bonobo]

10. Sigh. How did you determine that, Josh? nt

[joshcryer]

15. Because no one had 2/3rds majority?

This was after the violence broke out over the preliminary count. Oops, sorry, not violence, well meaning aggressive posturing and yelling for democracy over a misunderstanding.

I agree the petitions should've been allowed to come to a vote. The head count would have taken hours.

[Bonobo]

17. So that video, to you, does not show shady behavior, right?

Come out and say it if that's how you feel.

[joshcryer]

19. I see a woman doing the math.

And doing thevright thing in her best judgement, after having just been accosted by an angry mob because she was following the agenda and doing a preliminary vote.

Have some empathy. She's a human being.

[Bonobo]

20. Really? I saw a woman following instructions of a man who whispered in her ear how it should go down

Shady as hell.

[joshcryer]

22. I'm talking about the voice vote.

The guy seemed to just be telling her to go forward with the agenda.

When the voice vote happened the Sanders "nos" were louder, longer, and more sustained.

She stumbles, chokes up, and making the snap decision, does what she knows is optically bad, but ethically and morally right. She knows more Clinton people are there, she knows that Clinton won the original caucas, she know Sanders people tried a coup before, and minutes earlier she's just been accosted by an angry mob of petulant children. Some who were drunk by later admissions.

So she does the right thing.

[Bonobo]

24. How does she know there are more Hillary people there?

The person who spoke felt the "pre-count" was done far too early and that there was insufficient time for accreditation.

No, we did not see the same thing.

I saw a women determined to ram things through despite the fact that the voices were clearly in favor of the Sanders side. By alot. And yes, the Hillary people yelled as hard as they could too.

[joshcryer]

25. This is about the rules passage, Bonobo.

You can't do anything without passing the rules of procedure... it's literally the first thing you have to pass. In the preliminary count Clinton was up by several hundred, but neither side had enough for 2/3rds.

My goodness your sense of fairness is skewed if you think the louder people should've won. In the final count the Clinton side had more votes. The result was fair. It also reflected the original caucas day, unlike the attempted coup at the county convention.

And those 58 "disenfranchised" Sanders delegates never even fucking showed up. Still much dishonest bullshit in that convention.

[Bonobo]

31. Yes, and it was her duty to do a head count since a voice count was clearly inconclusive.

She BROKE the rules and clearly had an agenda.

[joshcryer]

40. It called for a vote by division.

If she, herself, could not determine the outcome of the vote. She was the only one who could decide that. The rules don't talk about what happens if people disagree with her. Meanwhile, the rules explicitly state that any other motions but be done by at most 3 delegates on each side, in other words, the entire fucking room should shut the fuck up and let the three delegates make their motion.

[Bonobo]

43. You're playing fast and loose.

Yes, the "vote by division" as you call it (actually Vote of Division of Assembly) is what she should have done if she had been honest enough to admit that the voice vote was not clear.

[joshcryer]

44. If Sanders folks weren't asshats who knows how it would've gone.

The result was fair and followed the will of the people there.

To her mind it was absolutely clear and the final result reflected that (so she didn't just make a wrong decision, she made a decision that turned out to be correct, much to the distaste of those wanting to overturn the will of the people).

[frylock]

46. The math?

Hunh? Did she make a mathematical audio calculation on the voice vote?

[silvershadow]

12. k&r

[hereforthevoting]

26. This was angering

Very angering.

[FlatBaroque]

27. The BrockPuppets are certainly annoying, like gnats, but it is the

long term posters here who do it for free, they are my true enemies. I understand differences in position with Republicans, Libertarians, anyone of any political faith. But in order to move forward each of us has to agree to a certain code of behavior. But as you point out, if members of the same team cannot allow honest competition to occur, then they are the obstacle to progress, and they are my enemies.

Any person who cannot see what this toady functionary did as being wrong, is not on my side, and will never have my support.

THIS IS THE WORLD OF HILLARY CLINTON.

[stillwaiting]

29. I think it is both funny and very sad that some people seem to think anger is not

appropriate.

At this time in our nation's history. After what has happened over the past 4 decades. After what has transpired over this primary.

Anyone that gets the vapors over the anger expressed at the Nevada convention is going to have a lot of problems going forward in this country if things don't change.

Hint: we have not seen much of anything that is to come.

[baldguy]

30. If you get angry because your side can't abide by the rules & loses, you are part of the problem.

300 Bernie delegates couldn't be bothered to even show up. Not Roberta Lange's fault. 64 Bernie delegates couldn't be bothered to register as Democrats. Not Roberta Lange's fault. A voice vote doesn't count volume, it counts voices. Not Roberta Lange's fault.

If you want to be angry, be angry at the Sanders Campaign in NV who couldn't get their act together.

[Bonobo]

32. She broke the rules, baldguy.

[baldguy]

34. No she didn't.

And even if she did, the proper response doesn't include death threats.

The simple fact is the Sanders campaign fell down on the job in NV & Sanders lost. Where's your anger at the 300 Sanders people WHO DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO SHOW UP! It's just blatant fucking incompetence to let that happen.

[Bonobo]

35. "And even if she did..."

[baldguy]

36. So, you think death threats are an appropriate response?

[Bonobo]

37. I think you don't give a fuck up whether rules were broken, that's what I think. nt

[baldguy]

38. The rules were not broken. Death threats are not an appropriate response.

Sanders people fucked up & lost. And you're more interested in beating Clinton than in beating Trump.

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. Spot on.

People will only be stepped on for so long.

[pdsimdars]

39. That is exactly the point. . . . they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

[brooklynite]

41. I'm not going to leap to a judgement...until the SANE PROGRESSIVE or H.A. Goodman weighs in

[Demsrule86]

42. Yeah because

Not being allowed to steal delegates, you could not earn is just awful...remember Clinton won Nevada...and calling Democratic women filthy names is just fine and based on his statement Bernie agrees.

[pacalo]

47. Excellent points; I agree, Bonobo.

[Sheepshank]

48. Here's the thing....I have yet to find a statement from a Hillary supporter......

...that surpasses this pile of crap left by a Bernie supporter...AND was left to stand (yeah, tell me how loaded this jury was?)

On second thought I take that big FUCK YOU back. I wouldn't fuck you even with someone else's dog's cock. You have proven yourself to be utterly and irretrievably morally repugnant. You have stooped to depths that are lower than whale shit in the fucking Marianas trench. There's a lot of pressure down there for anyone with a shred of fucking decency but once your balls are shriveled to the obvious pinhead size it affects the brain and there's little left than to attempt to smear the shit on the walls when it didn't stick whilst you were flinging it.

[bettyellen]

49. The lies spread about what happened in NV are so disturbing. I used to think the CTs were borne of

ignorance, now I know it's deliberate shit created to get morons even more stoked up. Fools.
BS's people got rid of those 58 delegates in concert with HRC people. Get over this persecution complex.