Now, such conspiracy claims are not emanating from the official Bernie Sanders campaign. But the closer we get to the Democratic National Convention, the more it seems possible that Sanders could endorse and even campaign for Hillary Clinton without ever conceding she beat him fair and square. After all, the piquancy of his demand for nominating-process reforms depends on the feeling that the system this time around was indeed "rigged," with the way California handled votes by pro-Bernie No Party Preference (i.e., independent) voters being part of the "rigging" (as always, California required indies participating in the Democratic primary to ask for a Democratic ballot, even when voting by mail. That was naturally confusing — especially to first-time voters — since all non-presidential contests involved a single ballot for everybody). After the convention is over and Bernie has raised hands with Clinton and her running mate on the final night, the whole point of making this sort of concession may become moot. So the legend of Bernie being robbed of the nomination could well live on.

So let's say late on the night of November 8, or early in the morning of November 9, Clinton is declared the winner of the general election by something less than a landslide nationally, with a close enough margin in some states to justify claims that moving around this or that small group of voters might have produced a Donald Trump win instead. How will Trump and his fans react? Think a conspiracy theory might come to mind? Will the guy who for months couldn't stop alleging that Ted Cruz "stole" Iowa by "lying" about Ben Carson's candidacy (a very minor event on caucus night, even if you believe Team Cruz was "lying" about Carson's possible withdrawal from the race rather than understandably misinterpreting his stated desire to take a "break&quot is going to concede easily, or at all? It's really unlikely, when you think about it.

And so, as Nate Cohn says:

Clinton could go down as the first candidate to win both the nomination and the presidency — perhaps even decisively — without a proper concession.

Maybe it won't matter to her, but in terms of her ability to govern, the persistence of claims that she did not legitimately become president could be one of many factors making the 45th president's job that much harder.

5. Most Importantly, this website supports Bernie Sanders for President.
Please do not waste our time extolling the imaginary virtues of any other candidate or try to sneak them in pretending you're undecided, or pretending you're a Bernie supporter when all you can talk about is how wonderful Hillary is. We're not interested; find another site for that.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
?@realDonaldTrump
It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

Hillary Clinton, If you are reading these comments:
A photo of you and my mom has sat on our mantel for the past 24 years. Circa 1992, you were touring some pediatric oncology wards. My brother was two years old and in one of those wards, being treated for leukemia.

The story goes, you showed up to the ward and did your rounds. One of the women you met was wearing a royal blue velour track suit. The story goes that you said "I hope your son makes a speedy recovery" and the woman in that really unfortunate blue track suit cried as you hugged her and shook her hand. That woman was my mother.

I'm sure you've met so many people in the course of your career as first lady and then senator, but I want you to know that my brother will turn 25 in a few months, and he is doing great, and there is still a picture of you and my mom shaking hands as she chokes back tears sitting framed on our mantel. During this entire campaign my mother has been an ardent Hillary supporter. When you ask her why, she has always said "I met her once, and she was a really lovely person, even though I cried on her."

And now I learn that you like two monks and published something on The Toast that caused me to let out a whole string of expletives (thank GOD no one else was in the office). We are not worthy. And because my mom never got to say it: Thank you.

Anyway, with Trump it’s déjà vu all over again, to quote the late Yankee great Yogi Berra. Trump is running a scam on working stiffs that reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s almost identical con job.

The Gipper, the most anti-union president since Herbert Hoover, claimed to champion blue-collar America. The Donald does, too.

Sad to say, Reagan’s sucker play worked on more than a few union members. They helped elect the guy.

"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost!" pre-President Reagan said. Only months after he took office, he smashed the Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO), one of the few unions that endorsed him.

When PATCO members went on strike for better pay and working conditions, Reagan fired them. Their union was decertified and strikers were prohibited from ever working for Uncle Sam again. (President Bill Clinton lifted the ban.)

By crushing PATCO, Reagan flashed "an unambiguous signal that employers need to feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear—illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad," the Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson wrote.

(Before he decided to run for president, Trump was on board with outsourcing.)

Reagan’s bare-knuckle union-busting shouldn’t have surprised PATCO. The AFL-CIO repeatedly warned that his sometimes pro-union rhetoric was a far cry from his anti-union positions. Reagan touted "right to work" laws when he ran for president.

The AFL-CIO endorsed President Jimmy Carter’s re-election. So did nearly every union. "A union member voting for Ronald Reagan is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders," said a sign in a Paducah, Kentucky, union hall 26 years ago. I don’t know if anybody saved the sign. But if somebody did, it ought to go back up with “Ronald Reagan” painted out and “Donald Trump” painted on.

Like Reagan’s in 1980, Trump’s record is out there, plain for all to see.

Trump says he prefers right to work states to non-right to work states.

Trump is fine with U.S. companies pulling up stakes in one state and relocating in another. Translation: Trump is cool with companies busting unions in non-right to work states and moving to right to work states.

Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his Las Vegas hotel workers from organizing a union.

"Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S.," is the tagline the Huffington Post puts on its stories about the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

I’ve packed a union card for more than 20 years. Trump mocks the fundamental principle of trade unionism: In a union, everybody is a brother or sister, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, sexuality or anything else.

Concern Troll is concerned:
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

A concern troll will pretend to care (about the opponent's health, well being, political activism, lifestyle, choices, etc.) while in reality, he or she only wants to cause self doubt and fear. A concern troll tries to undermine that which he or she pretends to support.

What Is Concern Trolling? Watch Out For This Subtle Form Of Shaming
Urban Dictionary defines a concern troll as "someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns.'" In other words, it's someone who pretends to support you but couches their disagreements in the form of "concerns," which allows them to justify criticism as the result of worrying about you. "I'm on your side," they say, "but you shouldn't do X, Y, and Z. It looks bad to some people — not that I agree, but I thought you should know."

Wikipedia:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

concern troll
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

Enter the Concern Troll

But I think it touches on a larger trend in opinionating.

Enter The Concern Troll.

There are two ways of disagreeing with someone. One is to disagree openly. The other is to say, “I support you, but you’re doing it wrong.”

The second is insidious.

The second is condescending, insincere, manipulative. It even says so in the Urban Dictionary definition.

The darkest moment is always just after the concern trolls start pouring in.

“I’m with you,” the concern troll says. “But surely you must see how this looks to people. Not me, of course. But other people. They might think horrible things of you. People might think you were self-centered, fat, slow, rude. Not me, of course. I’m with you. I have your best interests at heart. That’s why I want to warn you. I, you see, know how this ought to be done.”

Dems: Ignore 'concern trolls By Markos Moulitsas - 01/09/08 11:40 AM EST

In the blog world we call this “concern trolling” — offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.

A Concern troll:
A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic. Concern trolling in geek feminism communities can result in continual reversion to Feminism 101 discussions in attempts to appease the troll's concerns, frustrating attempts at more serious discussion. Concern trolls are not always self-aware; they may also view themselves as potential allies who have just, oddly, never met a feminist opinion they liked.

Concern trolls can be identified primarily because they will retreat from, rather than engage with or be convinced by, answers to the questions they pose. They may repeatedly ask a certain question in feminist discussions without ever absorbing or replying to answers from previous discussions. They will often back into typical anti-feminist arguments, such as expressing concern that an argument is too "extreme" or a feminist too "strident" or even "hysterical". Another common tactic is insisting that some subjects are more important than others, for example, that media depictions of women shouldn't be criticised while violence against women continues.

Concern Troll is concerned:
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

A concern troll will pretend to care (about the opponent's health, well being, political activism, lifestyle, choices, etc.) while in reality, he or she only wants to cause self doubt and fear. A concern troll tries to undermine that which he or she pretends to support.

What Is Concern Trolling? Watch Out For This Subtle Form Of Shaming
Urban Dictionary defines a concern troll as "someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns.'" In other words, it's someone who pretends to support you but couches their disagreements in the form of "concerns," which allows them to justify criticism as the result of worrying about you. "I'm on your side," they say, "but you shouldn't do X, Y, and Z. It looks bad to some people — not that I agree, but I thought you should know."

Wikipedia:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

concern troll
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

Enter the Concern Troll

But I think it touches on a larger trend in opinionating.

Enter The Concern Troll.

There are two ways of disagreeing with someone. One is to disagree openly. The other is to say, “I support you, but you’re doing it wrong.”

The second is insidious.

The second is condescending, insincere, manipulative. It even says so in the Urban Dictionary definition.

The darkest moment is always just after the concern trolls start pouring in.

“I’m with you,” the concern troll says. “But surely you must see how this looks to people. Not me, of course. But other people. They might think horrible things of you. People might think you were self-centered, fat, slow, rude. Not me, of course. I’m with you. I have your best interests at heart. That’s why I want to warn you. I, you see, know how this ought to be done.”

Dems: Ignore 'concern trolls By Markos Moulitsas - 01/09/08 11:40 AM EST

In the blog world we call this “concern trolling” — offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.

A Concern troll:
A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic. Concern trolling in geek feminism communities can result in continual reversion to Feminism 101 discussions in attempts to appease the troll's concerns, frustrating attempts at more serious discussion. Concern trolls are not always self-aware; they may also view themselves as potential allies who have just, oddly, never met a feminist opinion they liked.

Concern trolls can be identified primarily because they will retreat from, rather than engage with or be convinced by, answers to the questions they pose. They may repeatedly ask a certain question in feminist discussions without ever absorbing or replying to answers from previous discussions. They will often back into typical anti-feminist arguments, such as expressing concern that an argument is too "extreme" or a feminist too "strident" or even "hysterical". Another common tactic is insisting that some subjects are more important than others, for example, that media depictions of women shouldn't be criticised while violence against women continues.

Concern Troll is concerned:
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

A concern troll will pretend to care (about the opponent's health, well being, political activism, lifestyle, choices, etc.) while in reality, he or she only wants to cause self doubt and fear. A concern troll tries to undermine that which he or she pretends to support.

What Is Concern Trolling? Watch Out For This Subtle Form Of Shaming
Urban Dictionary defines a concern troll as "someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns.'" In other words, it's someone who pretends to support you but couches their disagreements in the form of "concerns," which allows them to justify criticism as the result of worrying about you. "I'm on your side," they say, "but you shouldn't do X, Y, and Z. It looks bad to some people — not that I agree, but I thought you should know."

Wikipedia:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

concern troll
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

Enter the Concern Troll

But I think it touches on a larger trend in opinionating.

Enter The Concern Troll.

There are two ways of disagreeing with someone. One is to disagree openly. The other is to say, “I support you, but you’re doing it wrong.”

The second is insidious.

The second is condescending, insincere, manipulative. It even says so in the Urban Dictionary definition.

The darkest moment is always just after the concern trolls start pouring in.

“I’m with you,” the concern troll says. “But surely you must see how this looks to people. Not me, of course. But other people. They might think horrible things of you. People might think you were self-centered, fat, slow, rude. Not me, of course. I’m with you. I have your best interests at heart. That’s why I want to warn you. I, you see, know how this ought to be done.”

Dems: Ignore 'concern trolls By Markos Moulitsas - 01/09/08 11:40 AM EST

In the blog world we call this “concern trolling” — offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.

A Concern troll:
A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic. Concern trolling in geek feminism communities can result in continual reversion to Feminism 101 discussions in attempts to appease the troll's concerns, frustrating attempts at more serious discussion. Concern trolls are not always self-aware; they may also view themselves as potential allies who have just, oddly, never met a feminist opinion they liked.

Concern trolls can be identified primarily because they will retreat from, rather than engage with or be convinced by, answers to the questions they pose. They may repeatedly ask a certain question in feminist discussions without ever absorbing or replying to answers from previous discussions. They will often back into typical anti-feminist arguments, such as expressing concern that an argument is too "extreme" or a feminist too "strident" or even "hysterical". Another common tactic is insisting that some subjects are more important than others, for example, that media depictions of women shouldn't be criticised while violence against women continues.

As Senator Ted Kennedy’s health care staff director, I had a front-row seat to the decades-long battle he fought to give every American access to quality, affordable health care. And thanks to his passion and his leadership, we were able to achieve some great things — even in the face of staunch Republican opposition — including health care reform and the creation of the Child Health Insurance Program. But Senator Kennedy didn’t wage this fight alone; he had a key ally inside the Clinton administration.

Hillary Clinton was there when it counted. As Senator Kennedy said, “The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

It’s well known that as first lady, Hillary worked hard in pursuit of something that progressives had been seeking for generations: universal health care.

But you might not remember that after Republicans and special interests defeated the Clinton administration’s effort to pass national health insurance in 1994, Hillary refused to give up — and she turned her attention to other ways to help expand health care for American families.