I believe the clearest explanation for the Clinton campaign's actions in NV and the ratfucking of

[Vincardog]

The left is:
They have decided that they can not win.
They are acknowledging that they will have to STEAL it.
Their MO is going to be BLATANT and unapologetic.
Watch as more votes disappear or are switched before your eyes.

They will do it right before your eyes and act like you are the problem.

[YouDig]

1. Why would they think they can't win? Have you looked at the delegate count?

[msongs]

2. nice for a laugh. it was the sanders crowd doing all the dirty deeds the other day nt

[merrily]

27. Were you there?

[Skinner]

3. Sigh.

She has a commanding lead.

Even if she were inclined to "steal it" -- which she isn't -- there is no reason for her to do that. The entire premise of your OP is wrong.

[Metric System]

38. +1000.

[Fresh_Start]

4. I believe that the clearest explanation for the Sanderss campaigns actions in NV and the ratfucking

of the voters is:

They have decided that they can not win.
They are acknowledging that they will have to STEAL it.
Their MO is going to be BLATANT and unapologetic.
Watch as more votes disappear or are switched before your eyes.

They will do it right before your eyes and act like you are the problem


Works equally well pointing at the Sanders campaign.
Clinton won Nevada in February.
Clinton lost the county caucus
Clinton won the state caucus.

The win at the state caucus was not dispute-able
More Clinton delegates showed up than Sanders delegates.
The counts were confirmed by a bipartisan credentials committee.
The committee was composed of equal numbers of sanders and clinton supporters.

[Vincardog]

14. The credentials committee kept 64 Bernie delegates out to give HRC a 30 delegate lead CHEATING

[Fresh_Start]

21. wrong: they kept 58 sanders delegates and 8? clinton delegates out

using the same rules for both groups of delegates.

and the rules were previously disclosed rules..and have been in place since 2012.

why can't sanders supporters ever follow the rules?

[Vincardog]

23. The rules in place since 2012 allowed delegates to challenge why they were denied. The chair denied

them this opportunity. That is why the delegates were so upset. Watch the video. I will accept you apology later.

[Fresh_Start]

26. no, the chair did not deny them the right to challenge

and some of them (64-58) did challenge and were allowed to participate as delegates.
Most of the others didn't even show up to challenge the decision.

The video doesn't show that because the video did not contain the credential committees work.
Keep lying to yourself

[Vincardog]

29. You are entitled to your opinion not your own facts. Fact is they stole it for HRC on tape. Get

Over it.

[Fresh_Start]

33. The fact is that Clinton won Nevada in February...

and sanders tried to intimidate the state convention but it didn't work.
you are not entitled to your own facts.
The bipartisan committee determined which delegates could serve: and more clinton delegates passed the rules.

If only sanders delegates had shown up...or had been legitimate and didn't try to throw the democratic party under the bus by promptly changing their party registration, they would have won.

Looks like sanders supporters should be hounding their 350+ delegates that didn't bother to show up.

[Renew Deal]

5. Maybe Bernie is just losing

Crazy huh?

[silvershadow]

6. Kick for truth. They have been doing so during The Great Coast to Coast

Disenfranchisement Tour this entire primary season. Ever since the wheels fell of the bus at the first of the year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Well I don't care who "wins" the nomination

at this point, It is so blatant that I do not consider it legitimate, I will pretend to fill a ballot, and I expect that vote to go wherever the central tabulator decides it belongs. Earlier in the day I even joked that they might give it to a Republcians, never mind that is actually a closed primary, but nothing would surprise me anymore. And in November, I don't expect it to actually count as cast either.

So who am I voting for? Whoever the damn powers that be want me to vote for. At least give me a coke and a torta. damn it. These days it is a spending card... by the way. Yes, it is that blatant

But it is bad enough that I now have joined the millions who consider voting a waste of time. I will just do ti because I am too stubborn.

[obamanut2012]

10. lolz

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I agree with you, it is hilarious

Please tip the staff on your way out.

[SidDithers]

32. Sure you don't...

Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. So who did you vote in your elections?

and were hurt when Harper lost?

[SidDithers]

35. I voted for John Oliver...nt

Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I guess our friends from the UK

are running in Canadian elections

Good to know. I learn stuff every day here.

[SidDithers]

41. Once again displaying the expert research skills...

that led you to report 6 feet of hail in Mexico City (or was it a 60cm meter?). and Jay Polk had been killed in Syria.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/John-Oliver(88881)

Well done.

Sid

[PeaceNikki]

8. Your "explicantion" (SIC) is full baseless conspiracy theories.

[Vincardog]

16. You explain why they are hating on the left.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Uuummm... I'm not.

[Vincardog]

20. So your reply is baseless opinion. I am good with that.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Your OP is baseless conspiracy theory. That's a fact. There's no evidence of fraud.

[Vincardog]

25. Watch the video. Appologize to me after. Thank you

[PeaceNikki]

28. There's no video in your OP.

[obamanut2012]

9. Thanks for the OP!

I had a busy day at work, and needed the

[Vincardog]

17. Your welcome

[Dem2]

12. You are very concerned.

[Starry Messenger]

13. I echo Skinner's sigh.

[TwilightZone]

15. "They have decided that they can not win."

Clinton is about 1/4 of California's delegates away from winning the nomination.

Your assertion doesn't make any logical sense.

"They are acknowledging that they will have to STEAL it. "

Such as trying to get more delegates than the winner of a caucus by subverting the will of the people?

Yeah, I suppose that could be considered stealing. Except that was your guy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. yes, how could Clinton possibly win 270 delegates ahead with six states to go

Sandersism in a nutshell in the OP.

[anotherproletariat]

22. Yes you are totally right. Now please go see a therapist before you hurt someone. nt

[HereSince1628]

30. Look it's not rocket science, it -IS- Shock Doctrine...they need an enemy on the LEFT

to enable them to move freely to the RIGHT.

Those dangerous Bernie Bros and Bobs are just the ticket! HRC really CANNOT go to them, THEY are FORCING HER!!! to go to the republicans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. BINGO

[BeyondGeography]

31. Oy

[mindwalker_i]

39. I have to disagree, in that Hillary has more delegates

She can almost certainly win at this point. Are you saying that there has been cheating the whole way through? There might have been, and some evidence exists, but not enough to make the claim decisively.

What's interesting is that, even though she has been winning, they had to pull all that shit in NV. That very much seems like it could really piss off a ot of people and further damage her chances in the GE. It almost seems like an emotional reaction to people who don't support her, as in, how dare they?!

That, more than anything, raises a lot of red flags as to Hillary's suitability to be president.

[All in it together]

40. Hillary is too much like Nixon, can't help herself?

He would have won without cheating but he couldn't help himself and cheated (had his guys break into the Watergate) anyway. Ohhhh, there are enemies all around.

I'm not sure if she can win with or without cheating.