The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Chris_ on May 16, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
-
Chaos At Nevada Democratic Convention; State Party Chair Flees Building As Sanders Supporters Demand Recount
Adryenn Ashley posted several live videos (below) from inside the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, where arcane secondary rounds of the delegate selection process of Nevada's Democratic caucus erupted into chaos Saturday night. Bernie Sanders supporters demanded 64 rejected pro-Sanders delegates listed in a "minority report" prepared by their campaign be allowed to participate in selecting delegates for the national convention.
State party chair and DNC executive committee member Roberta Lange refused to reconsider their decision not to allow this, adjourned, and fled the building amid a chorus of boos; leaving hotel security and local police officers to handle the angry Sanders supporters.
Earlier in the day, the Sanders camp objected to several of their delegates being disqualified from voting for administrative reasons, and booed Sen. Barbara Boxer when she called for unity. "If you're booing me, you're booing Bernie Sanders," she told them. "Go ahead, boo yourselves out of this election."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9yNZbNqraE[/youtube]
Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html)
:popcorn:
-
Disaffected Bernie supporters staying home is the only chance Trump has of winning. :-)
-
Disaffected Bernie supporters staying home is the only chance Trump has of winning. :-)
Why not? It worked for obama in 2012.
-
Bernie supporters are violent aren't they?
-
Disaffected Bernie supporters staying home is the only chance Trump has of winning. :-)
Trump is the second choice for more than a few of those people. Neither one are Establishment, and that's what the Bernouts like.
-
Trump is the second choice for more than a few of those people. Neither one are Establishment, and that's what the Bernouts like.
But will those outnumber the "Never Trump" group that won't be voting for the gop candidate?
-
But will those outnumber the "Never Trump" group that won't be voting for the gop candidate?
I don't think the "Never Trump" group is nearly as powerful as is being portrayed. If they were, then they would have been able to field a third party candidate to go after him in the general election.
-
I don't think the "Never Trump" group is nearly as powerful as is being portrayed. If they were, then they would have been able to field a third party candidate to go after him in the general election.
Their goal isn't to win, merely to prevent Trump winning at all costs. There are plenty of "third party" candidates already on the ballot.
Cruz and the others had more overall support than Trump and his supporters are still insulting those people on social networking sites.
-
Their goal isn't to win, merely to prevent Trump winning at all costs.
I know that, which I why I said the Never Trump crowd was unable to field any other challenge that would have derailed him. I personally think that would have been a great idea - if the GOP was that hellbent on committing suicide. But I don't think the support for their cause is as deep as they believe it is.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279749-third-party-effort-fizzling-out
Just an observation, nothing more.
Cruz and the others had more overall support than Trump and his supporters are still insulting those people on social networking sites.
I've seen the insults go both ways, but if you're looking at total support across several candidates to one candidate, wouldn't it be kind of difficult not to have more overall support?
-
I've seen the insults go both ways, but if you're looking at total support across several candidates to one candidate, wouldn't it be kind of difficult not to have more overall support?
One side of that equation should be trying to win supporters from the other. They need to stop acting like sore winners and act the "bigger person". Instead they are doubling down and making sure some people will never vote for Trump. Hillary will win if she isn't indicted.
-
One side of that equation should be trying to win supporters from the other. They need to stop acting like sore winners and act the "bigger person". Instead they are doubling down and making sure some people will never vote for Trump. Hillary will win if she isn't indicted.
Well, if those who aren't current Trump supporters are going to sit on their hands and allow Hillary a victory because someone said mean things to them, what does that say about their character? Quite frankly, I don't believe that for one minute - I really don't.
If a voter has their vote swayed in that manner, and they can't make a decision on their own, then they don't need to be voting.
-
Well, if those who aren't current Trump supporters are going to sit on their hands and allow Hillary a victory because someone said mean things to them, what does that say about their character? Quite frankly, I don't believe that for one minute - I really don't.
If a voter has their vote swayed in that manner, and they can't make a decision on their own, then they don't need to be voting.
Some of those same Trump supporters sat on their thumbs and refused to vote for Mitt Romney.
-
Some of those same Trump supporters sat on their thumbs and refused to vote for Mitt Romney.
As, I'm sure, did Cruz supporters, Rubio supporters, Kasich supporters, etc. So, after watching those people sit on their thumbs, and not vote for Romney, the answer now is to, what? Sit on their thumbs and not vote for Trump?
I'm sorry, but I cannot wrap my head around the level of intellectual dishonesty I am seeing in this presidential election cycle. 4 years ago, I was told that if I didn't vote for Romney/Ryan, I was surely handing obama a victory. Today, I'm hearing that supporting an effort to undercut the presumptive nominee for whatever reason is not a vote for Hillary, it's a valiant effort to save the GOP.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't compute. Neither does the rationale I see bandied about for doing it.
But, going back to my original point, I don't think the Never Trump effort is going to have the effect that those who are trying to implement it think it will have. It seems that quite a few in this country are not willing to hamstring the nominee at the behest of the donor class of the GOPe.
-
I don't recall Romney every being a democrat not a big donor to democrats. Trump has yet to provide a clear view of where he stands on anything.
All I ever hear is "Make America Great Again!" "Build a wall". And that second one he is already backing down on.
-
I don't recall Romney every being a democrat not a big donor to democrats.
Do you mean to tell me that one of the biggest GOPe RINOs gets a pass for that? C'mon, man!
He may not have been registered as a democrat (registered "Independent" in MA), but he sure had no problem voting for them.
Trump has yet to provide a clear view of where he stands on anything.
If you say so, but he has sure caught a lot of heat for not taking a stand on "anything".
All I ever hear is "Make America Great Again!" "Build a wall". And that second one he is already backing down on.
I think you may be engaging in hyperbole, but, if that's your take, then that's your take. I have yet to hear a honest, consistent explanation how not voting for Trump (provided he's the nominee) is not a vote for Hillary (like I've heard the past 3 election cycles), though.
-
Do you mean to tell me that one of the biggest GOPe RINOs gets a pass for that? C'mon, man!
He may not have been registered as a democrat (registered "Independent" in MA), but he sure had no problem voting for them.
And Trump supported Mitch McConnell in his bid to defeat conservatives in senate races. Trump is at best a RINO and more likely a liberal playing games.
If you say so, but he has sure caught a lot of heat for not taking a stand on "anything".
He takes heat from the left, but he takes heat from conservatives on his flip flops to appease the left. He's already backed down immigration, Planned Parenthood and the wall.
I think you may be engaging in hyperbole, but, if that's your take, then that's your take. I have yet to hear a honest, consistent explanation how not voting for Trump (provided he's the nominee) is not a vote for Hillary (like I've heard the past 3 election cycles), though.
Fox News carried plenty of his speeches in their entirety. He said a lot of words, but never gave many specifics other than those I said. Those weren't even specifics, just more "hope and change" rhetoric like we heard from Obama.
I have yet to hear how not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary. It's a BS claim.
-
And Trump supported Mitch McConnell in his bid to defeat conservatives in senate races. Trump is at best a RINO and more likely a liberal playing games.
But Romney and McCain were A-ok?
He's already backed down immigration, Planned Parenthood and the wall.
I can't think of a candidate who hasn't had to walk back statements or otherwise soften them. I can remember face palming after my guy (Ted Cruz) said that the police needed to "patrol and secure" muslim neighborhoods. Not that I didn't agree with what he was saying, I knew he was going to have to do some serious explaining.
It's a BS claim.
It wasn't a BS claim for 08 and 12, why is it now?