Extraordinary Stitch-Up at Nevada Democratic Convention 115


I had heard much about the way that Hillary was able to use control of the Democratic Party machine to suppress the challenge of Bernie Sanders. I had not fully understood it until I saw this truly shocking video of the Nevada Democratic Convention, a stage in the awarding of that state’s delegates to Hillary or Bernie. After the announcement of a narrow win for Hillary, which to many seemed improbable, the chairwoman of the Convention, Roberta Lange, a member of the National Democratic Committee, absolutely refused demands for a recount. She then closed the Convention after calling for a voice vote, again uncounted, on a rules change to allow her to do that.

Twice as many Sanders delegates to the Convention were disqualified by the Committee,for “administrative reasons”, as the supposed majority for Clinton, which even after those disqualifications did not appear to reflect the apparent balance of delegates present.

I think watching the video will tell you more than anything I can say. When adverts appear keep watching past them as it seems to be in several parts.


115 thoughts on “Extraordinary Stitch-Up at Nevada Democratic Convention

  • AAMVN

    Incredible amount of anger on display in this video. I suspect this is due to the opaque nature of the process. Like justice, democracy should be seen to be done. Even if the result should go to Clinton they need to be able to demonstrate that the count is fair and the process followed fairly. But this looks like a stitch up even if it’s not.

    • Martinned

      Which is why Britain introduced the secret ballot more than 100 years ago. (As did all other democracies, for their actual elections.)

      • fred

        No.

        The secret ballot was introduced because tenants used to get evicted for not voting how they were told to vote, employees got sacked and voters got bribed. It was hard fought for against the establishment who liked things how they were.

          • Habbabkuk (for accuracy and honesty when posting)

            It isn’t.

            What Fred might have said is that there is a difference between the US primaries (not secret) and the forthcoming US general election (secret, as in all democracies).

      • Peter Butler

        It’s only secret here in the UK at the point of voting. The count is very open and public with the agents watching the counting process and the votes being stacked up very carefully and they can challenge any perceived discrepancies. It’s just that you can’t see who posted the votes, although even that can be established in the event of a challenge, but that rarely happens. So I don’t think your comment is relevant.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          I can’t remember the precise process now, but as I recall I went to the polling station and presented my card (which I didn’t have to do, I think: I think you can bring ID) and I was ticked off on a list. Then somebody else handed me a sheet with all the choices on it. I went to the booth and marked my choices and pitched the sheet into the ballot box.

          The only way for someone to tell how I voted would be if there was an identifying link between me and the sheet physically handed to me. I did not see anyone make a note of that, but I suppose that it is possible.

          • Martinned

            You don’t have to bring ID to vote in the UK. During the London Mayoral and GLA election, I forgot my voting card and didn’t carry ID. They still let me vote, all I had to do was say my name and address. And short of secret markings, I don’t see how my ballot could have been traced back to me.

  • N_

    Respect due to most of Bernie Sanders’s supporters, but when will the left learn the lesson that there is no parliamentary road to socialism?

    • Resident Dissident

      And when will the ersatz left learn that there is no other way.

      • nevermind

        I now beginning to understand what Dr. Dear/Strangelove said yesterday when he alluded to an uprising in Europe , but not due to this kind of western vote manipulations and rule changes at the last minute, but of the stream of refugees that have entered Europe.

        So our disaffection with what is going on, so we are told by him, the fact that voters are treated like dirt, will lead us to kick out at dishevelled and desperate refugees that have been bombed out of their houses, no doubt with his considerable help in the past, whilst we steadfastly support the racket that is trying to turn Europe into the next warzone on their list…..

        Think again Richard, why should we follow your inhumane manipulative suggestions, ffs retire you old goat.

    • Habbabkuk (for accuracy and honesty when posting)

      N_

      So please set out for us what you think is the road. Flesh out your belief.

      Thank you.

  • N_

    Big-time vote fraud is likely to have occurred in the recent London mayoral election too. So far all that’s been admitted – perhaps all that will ever be admitted – is that the counting machines “malfunctioned” and assigned hundreds of votes in each borough to the wrong candidate, delaying the result by several hours. Oh and curiously the turnout was something like 25% more than the pollsters – fuck the bullshitters to hell – were predicting. Vote stuffing? Who knows? None of the party machines is likely to call foul.

  • BrianFujisan

    It could be, and i think so, that all the Alternative media that have been screaming about the power, and control of the Police State.. Not so much Ignored, but kept dissinformed, outright lied to, The alternative Media have for years been saying it will soon be too late, and now we are here. Police state, with the Military State just waiting… So the elite don’t even try to hide it anymore.

  • N_

    Another point: the name of the man who really should be shouting loudest about this is of course Bernie Sanders. Where the fuck is he?

    Similarly in 2000, when George W Bush blatantly stole the US presidential election, where the fuck were Al Gore and the Democratic Party? Why didn’t they oppose what was essentially a coup d’état? The global cooperation between Democrats and Repuglicans in the National Endowment for Democracy may provide a clue. Parliamentary democracy is a safety valve.

    I add that I say this not from sectarianism but with the greatest respect for most of Bernie Sanders’s supporters.

    • Habbabkuk (for accuracy and honesty when posting)

      N_

      “Another point: the name of the man who really should be shouting loudest about this is of course Bernie Sanders. Where the fuck is he?”
      ___________________

      You’re not suggesting he’s part of the conspiracy, are you? That his candidacy is merely a cunning ploy by the Globalists/Militarists/Zionists to give the illusion that someone is opposing Hillary Clinton?

      ________________

      “Similarly in 2000, when George W Bush blatantly stole the US presidential election, where the fuck were Al Gore and the Democratic Party? Why didn’t they oppose what was essentially a coup d’état?”

      Didn’t that go all the way to the Supreme Court?

      Or are you suggesting more direct action should have been taken? If so, what?

      Thank you.

    • Tom

      Interesting point. Same in South Thanet when Nigel Farage was robbed of victory. Is it embarrassment that they make no protest or are they in some way part of the charade, as lightning rods for public anger, after which the establishment candidate pretends to adopt their poliicies?

  • John Goss

    This, like all US elections is corrupt and a farce. Everybody knows that Clinton is a slave (I nearly forgot my manners and said ‘whore’) to the establishment.She will do whatever is necessary. Sanders, the most reasonable prospect for a long time, may not be as reliable – at least from the way he talks. The US has just put a puppet in power in Brazil, Temer, who cannot rely on 10% of electoral support. It has another, Martelly, in charge of Haiti, against the wishes of the voters. It is hardly likely to allow a potential spoke in the capitalist wheel, Bernie Sanders, to come to power.

    US politics, foreign policy and home policy leave much to be desired. Unfortunately our own puppets are just as bad. I laugh when I see David Cameron and Boris Johnson pretending to be opposed to one another. It’s no more than an Oxford Union debate. It’s your turn to argue this case now. Only the incurably blind of mind could fail to see that should there be a flaw in the forthcoming referendum that Cameron would step down in favour of Johnson (OMG) and nothing whatsover will have changed except that one pillock will have replaced another.

    • Loony

      According to Pepe Escobar Tenner routinely garners an approval rating of between 1% and 2%.

      I seem to recall that Kate Bush composed a song entitled “There goes a tenner” Part of the lyrics were
      “the sense of adventure
      Is changing to danger.
      The signal has been given.
      I go in.
      The crime begins”

      Maybe Kate is blessed with the power of prophesy!

    • N_

      @John – What do you mean by a “flaw” in the referendum?

      The funniest recent thing regarding the referendum has been how they wheeled out Christine Lagarde of the IMF to support the Remain side. How many newspaper political editors had the gumption to tell their readers what the IMF is. I mean what kind of entity it is. It’s a bank. (Please let no smartypants types tell me otherwise. Its function is to take deposits and make loans. Of course it’s a bank.) Neither did they bother to tell their readers that Lagarde has been ordered to stand trial in relation to the Bernard Tapie corruption case. But the woman’s idiotic statement that withdrawal from the EU would be bad because that corrupt moneylaundering shithouse called the “Square Mile” would be caused to lose its global importance got reported as if it were some kind of sensible warning in the interest of the public good, made by Mrs Squeaky Clean. If the Square Mile did lose its global importance, it would be about fucking time! And it’s about fucking time it lost its importance in Britain too. Who are we going to hear from next, the Group of London?

      • John Goss

        “@John – What do you mean by a “flaw” in the referendum?”

        Speculation is that we will be staying in the European Union. I will be happy for that because I believe in free-movement. However, I realise too that Europe is not ideal but I agree with unions and accept I will not always get my way.

        Goodnight all.

        • Phil the ex frog

          Freedom? Not those trapped in poverty on the edge of EU cities. Not those living hand to mouth in rural Europe. Not free movement for those dead at the bottom of the med or turned back to hell at gunpoint by European soldiers or those living behind barbed wire erected by European states. People escaping imperialism which maintains European economic privilege.

          Voting this way or that in the EU referendum will make no difference to all this but really, “I believe in union…free movement”…what drivel. Slogans to parrot.

      • deepgreenpuddock

        While i agree with the sentiment that the ‘square mile’ represents something unsavoury and antithetical to democracy, transparency and equality for the great majority, and is a non-stop gravy train for the few, and part of a mechanism which maintains a grip on the distribution of money, it is always sold as ‘our’ nice little earner. It is certainly not ‘ours’ in the sense most people would understand it-it probably isn’t even identifiably ‘British’ (whatever that means). There is of course a huge desire amongst most people for stability-and predictability- I think it is perceived often as apathy and lumpen sheep-like behaviour but there is a lot to be said for systematic and predictable social arrangements-it is what makes the difference in making some places tolerable to live in, and others intolerable-an unsatisfactory and hugely leveraged and unequal predictability may be preferable to a huge disruption where the outcome will be determined anyway by equally or even more malignant forces.That is what has happened in virtually all revolutionary movements and processes.
        Today Paul Mason has an article in the guardian. He makes the point that the EU is a neoliberal club which has engineered conditions to be maximally conducive to bankers and corporations, and that in the event of the referendum moving to within 7 points of a Brexit, the EU/others will engineer a run on the pound and Junker+ others will make a last minute intervention to concede the social chapter changes that Cameron tried to get, but failed to achieve, which would bring the kipper wing of the tories back into remain, but which for the left is the only thing worth having.

  • Loony

    To quote the much misunderestimated Mr. Andrew Partridge:

    “I say it really doesn’t matter where you put your vote. Someone else will come along and move it, and it’s always been the same”

    Clinton leads Sanders by 524 to 40 in terms of super delegates – and that will be a decisive margin irrespective of any voter preference.

    Opinion polls show that Sanders would beat Trump, but Trump would beat Clinton.

    It is indeed a Complicated Game!

  • glenn

    This really is worth however much time one has to look at it:

    http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

    It’s divided into a short, medium and long version, as time allows. The author is quite genuine, and not some Republican/ teabagger hack. He actually wrote the timeline for the 911 attack, which was used by a course taught by Dick Clark (counter-terrorism expert for several administrations, non-partisan) at Harvard. The author is no anti-Clinton stooge, in other words.

    The scandal has more than originally met my eye, Macky was actually right about that.

    If the FBI decides to indict (with very good reason, apparently), then Bernie had better be still in the race when that time comes.

  • Iconoclast

    Oh do come on Craig, democracy in America ended when Kennedy got shot. If you are too dumb to realise that then the “hanging chad” should have convinced you. The only ones who haven’t woken up yet are Americans.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Please tell me…

    When Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements have netted her some $21.7m leading up to the 2016 election ( as of February, 2016) and Goldman Sachs portion of the contributions is in excess of $600,000:-

    Are these bribes; payment for exceptionally brilliant oratory; or a special brand of appreciation for exceptional political talent?

    Add to that the following:-

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/30/the-clinton-files-is-hillary-a-crook/

    So – is she corrupt – corruptible – or just plain crooked?

    You choose.

    • deepgreenpuddock

      You ask the right question. It is the same with Blair and many others who have been ‘in the loop’ and then go on to highly rewarded consultancies and directorial appointments. Nulabour is full of people who have taken the rewards.It seems like an easy enough fix but the failure to legislate on these matters speaks volumes
      It is an attempt to navigate a corrupt practice. It is plainly and palpably a means to provide resources under a pretext. the pretext of …….speaking……..the special ‘golden nuggets of wisdom. It owes more to the practice of corporations hiring expensive ‘motivational speakers’ and ‘sales gurus with cast iron methodologies’, and wise men spouting supercharged new age, inspirational quasi-religious stuff that will bring down the blessings of the lord of capitalism.It is post modern Cargo Cultism.
      it is impossible to stop people expressing themselves but the establishment of bogus charities,such as think tanks and political committees , where the prime figures become ‘stipendiaries’
      One of the most chastening things I remember reading about was the relief of the potato famine.it was described by James Hunter. Most people do not realise that the west of scotland was badly affected by the famine as well as Ireland.the Irish were left to rot , but the Scots were deemed more deserving cases and huge amount f money was collected in better off areas for the relief of west coast Scots.the result was that 98% of the money ended up in the pockets of the well enough off do gooding clergy and landed worthies -the ‘stipendiaries’ who were appointed to ensure the proper distribution of the funds. It is a salutary tale and I am always reminded of it when i hear of well-to do people with close connections to charitable ‘social enterprises’ . i may sound cynical but that is the merest fleck in comparison to the cynicism of those who use these mechanisms and who fail to act to stop such practices.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        …and wise men spouting supercharged new age, inspirational quasi-religious stuff that will bring down the blessings of the lord of capitalism.It is post modern Cargo Cultism.

        Agree, but Blair posing as a ‘wise man’ is risible. Like many others, the content of the drivel is unimportant except for a few fine-sounding phrases which reinforce the prejudices of the audience, delivered with an air of supreme confidence, and forwarded en masse to the press agencies. His charities provide many of his friends and proteges with wonderful salaries, depute any dirty work involved to the locals, on pittances, or interns, and place a handy little trade agency* at the centre of several dodgy but resource-rich states. Whose attitude to press freedom ensures that nothing is ever known about the relationship. What’s to criticise?

        * at the disposal of anyone with the money to hire it, including the Chinese.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain

        ‘Nulabour’?? You come close to insulting one of our finest, and flattest, deserts, sir!

  • johnf

    Such behaviour is terrible, but we shouldn’t necessarily assume that Clinton is going to win against Sanders (or Trump).

    Yesterday morning on MSNBC – the nearest the US gets to the BBC – an extraordinary 20 minutes occurred on “Good Morning, Joe”. “Good Morning Joe” – with its hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski (daughter of) – is as close to Neo-Con Central as you can get on American TV (along with Fox News).

    A young woman had been interviewed. She had been the main character in the NYT’s lead story that morning about Donald Trump sexually harassing lots of women. She stated categorically that The Times had deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented what she had told them. That he had not harassed her at all.

    This was the turning point in the programme. The experts lamented how this would be an open goal for Trump – yet another chance for him being able to show he is the victim of deliberate MSM smearing. Of how difficult it is to smear Trump over sexual matters because he is so open about it and he has promoted so many women on their merits within his business. And the difficulties that Hillary has over dealing with Bill’s multiple infidelities – a subject, post the NYT article, that Trump will be able to exploit.

    Then it became totally surreal. Someone brought up the name of Jeffery Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted paedophile. He seems to have run an open house in Florida for all sorts of prominent businessmen (names of British royalty have been included). It is now emerging that he was bessie mates with Bill. That Bill flew in his private jet all over the world. etc etc. This is now out in the open in the States, relayed by none other than MSNBC.

    In polls in the US Hillary is already only level pegging with Trump in three key marginal states. In national polls, Sanders gets higher backing as Trump’s opponent than she does. She is looking physically a wreck. Her delegate majority at the convention is relying heavily on the 500 or so “super” unelected delegates. If the going gets really heavy now and Sanders wins California, then she might not get it, the super-delegates might change sides.

    The MSNBC piece can be accessed at either of these:

    http://on.msnbc.com/1srmYD9

    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/woman-in-nyt-s-trump-piece-disputes-report-686463555992

    Jeffrey Epstein:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

  • johnf

    On a strategic level, this is sort of linked with the previous threads poser on whether British anti-Corbyn neocons were both accusing him of anti-semitism and opposing Sanders in the American elections.

    Both Sanders and Trump are anti-neocons. Trump might be anti-Iran, but he’s said that we have caused havoc in the Middle East, that he will approach the Israel Palestinian question on a level playing field, and that he’s prepared to do a deal with Putin (whose actions in Syria he has praised). Sanders is neutral (unlike his brother) on Israel, and generally opposed to foreign interventions. Both are far more interested in resuscitating American society and the economy than pursuing foreign wars that cost trillions. The next POTUS could quite easily be an anti neo-con. Even an isolationist.

    Where does this leave British neo-cons? Some will have backed neo-con policies through loyalty to Israel, but most of them will have done so purely through obedience to the Great White Father in Washington. And He suddenly is no longer a neocon. Suddenly the US’s foreign policy goals align much more with Corbyn than Cameron’s. Which way does our elite twist?

    • Martinned

      I’ve been wondering about that. Surely doing a deal with Putin – or with any other dictator who happens to be in power somewhere – is straight out of the Kissinger playbook? Is he back in vogue now?

      • Republicofscotland

        Martinned.

        What like Blair and Gaddafi, or Thatcher and Pinochet.

        • Martinned

          For Blair it was more exception than rule, but Thatcher was a true believer in realism. People who are actually entrusted with the responsibility for running a country always tend to become realists to some extent – idealism is easier if you’re an armchair philosopher – but it’s fascinating to see how realism/neo-con-ism go in and out of style over the years. What happened to making the world safe for democracy? To helping those poor sods suffering under the yoke of dictatorship? No more solidarity among the worldwide proletariat?

          • Republicofscotland

            If Thatcher was a believer in anything it was privatisation, apart from British Rail of course she feared privatising that would be the rock she floundered on, so she left that particular task to John Major.

            Of course Thatcher, provoked criticism when she invited South African president and apartheid guru, P.W.Botha to Chequers. Thatcher wasn’t a realist she was a destroyer, she was a Friedman and Chicago School of Economics admirer, so was Pinochet her close friend, who ravaged Chile with its flawed economic policies. Watching George Osborne weep tears at Thatcher’s funeral, had me thinking this acolyte may well be the next British PM after Cameron.

            Blair, however is a psychopath in a suit, so to speak, the illegal Iraq war aside two things pop into my mind about Miranda, I mean Blair, Cash for Honours and and the Dodgy Dossier.

            Neither Blair nor Thatcher were realists in my opinion.

    • Chris Rogers

      JohnF,

      Take a gander over to Naked Capitalism, www/nakedcapitalism.com – to get latest on US Election, readers posts are fun and not many are keen to promote Clinton on the Blog, its the same on most other websites not affiliated with the MSM.

        • Chris Rogers

          Anti-Clinton, most of the USA is anti-Clinton, fuck man where have you been for the past 6 months!!!!!!

          • Chris Rogers

            Just one issue, I beat the drum for Saunders, as I beat a drum for Corbyn. That said, I’m in the ABCC – Anyone But Clinton Club. And yes, on many issues Trump is far to the Left of the Borg Queen, such as sovereign debt issues.

            Still, if you believe the Borg Queen has gotten the Democrat Ticket by fair play, please dream on, what’s been done by Clinton and her allies actually makes her totally unfit for any elected office – just seems the Yank elite like their President’s as bent as they are – just a shame many of the US electorate would prefer a more honest and candid person, and you can’t say Trump ain’t candid, like him or loathe him!

          • Martinned

            As one of my favourite Tweeps put it on Twitter this morning:

            Both sides of the Atlantic, the people most angry about politicians lying to them are voting for politicians who are lying to them the most.

          • Chris Rogers

            Just one issue here, whilst we know Trump is a bullshite artist, the fact remains Clinton is just an out and out liar and fraud who’ll throw any fucker under a bus, part from the Elite who support her. Hence, the bullshitter Trump with no blood on his hands wins hands down – lets not facts get in the way, Hilary is a murderer, whilst Trump ain’t.

    • John M

      johnf.
      You are clearly making the mistake of believing that what Trump says is in any way bound to an honest statement of intent. Trump’s rhetoric is about as trustworthy as Clinton’s – that is to say, not at all.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      johnf, I believe that the animated cadaver, Sheldon Adelson, now supports Trump, which means that he must be 110% pro-Bibi, no matter what he might otherwise imply. I really hope that no-one is giving ANY credence to ANYTHING that ANY of them, including Sanders (the geriatric Obama?), are saying.

  • Republicofscotland

    In my opinion, there’s nothing remotely democratic, about Hilary Clinton. She’s the darling of the US military complex, I think when she becomes POTUS, she’ll set new standards on aggression by US foreign policy.

    Speaking of aggression, it’s 50 years since the Chinese Cultural revolution. A revolution that revolved around beating and murdering the educated classes, by the infamous Red Guard. Even now some still languish in prison, for no reason at all, other than enlightening students ouwith Mao’s inward thinking policies.

    • Martinned

      Nothing democratic or nothing Democratic? Either way, I’m not sure what your basis for concern is, given that she is beating Sanders by a wide margin – i.e. millions of actual votes – among registered Democrats. (As opposed to people with a weaker affinity for the party.)

      • Chris Rogers

        Fuck man you are full of it, let me guess, all members of the Democrats are all honest, God fearing folk. Utter bollocks, anyone with a working brain cell would not want to be associated with the DLC and the Democrats. Just a shame Sanders thought he could change the Democrats for the better, he can’t, which is tough, but at least from his ashes hopefully an actual Progressive political movement will develop, one not addicted to Corporate bribery. Oh, look over there, there’s Goldman Sachs – now where’s the Borg Queen?

        Stuffing her fucking pockets.

      • Republicofscotland

        Martinned.

        Not sure about my basis for concern says Martinned, well Martinned, do some research about the Clinton’s and their so called foundation, or watch Hilary kowtow to AIPAC, you can see her grovel, I mean speak here.

        http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

        Hilary Clinton is also on record if memory serves as saying she’ll come down on certain factions in the Middle East with a heavy hand. Which of course translates to military intervention again.

        Like Ronald Reagan, she’s the ideal puppet, allowing her handlers to create US foreign policy.

        I just cannot believe that the American public see her as a better Democratic US presidential candidate than Bernie Sanders.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        That is adequately explained by the Party members wishing to win the election regardless of any little moral misgivings they might admit to in a moment of depression with the whole corrupt process. We see the same with much of the Labour Party itself invoking the vote-catching talents (at least partly attributable to his predecessors) of the moral leper Blair, while the masses have spotted the flaws in that..

  • John M

    I was reading this Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests article earlier, by no means the first I’ve read on the subject, and this video posted by Craig just intensifies the stench. If you can’t be bothered to read the article then this short Hacking Democracy clip is well worth a look.
    I even read that Ireland had bought a bunch of these election machines, but had to literally scrap them they were so useless.

    “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” (Joseph Stalin)

  • The Queen of Mena

    Anyone who is surprised at this misunderstands the purpose of American electoral ceremony. The pageantry serves to appoint a CIA figurehead as nominal head of state – in this case Hillary Clinton, trusted CIA cadre with responsibility for CIA drugs trafficking through Mena Airport in Arkansas. You can look it up, it’s no secret. You just can’t pester CIA about it, as Gary Webb and pesky judge Robert Vance found out. Sanders is on record as resisting CIA rule so naturally he will be dispatched with armed force, as in Nevada – or as in Dallas, if he doesn’t get the message.

    This is how CIA has ruled since inception. Dulles elbowed rule-of-law extremist Taft aside for Ike. CIA shot wayward puppet JFK when you elected him, and shot his brother before you even got the chance to vote him in. When you elected Carter, CIA purged him. When you elected Reagan they gave him a CIA nomenklatura as Veep and then shot him. Then you got the choice of CIA functionaries Clinton or Bush. And I hope you didn’t think you had anything to do with the meteoric rise of uncredentialed nonentity Obama, son of spooks, grandson of spooks, with an Australian spook’s daughter for a girlfriend, who worked for CIA proprietary BIC, took a youthful junket to Pakistan without getting beheaded, and got greased into Harvard by Prince Alwaleed’s financial majordomo. Come on. CIA has impunity for murder and torture and aggression. Of course you will accept your dear leader.

  • fwl

    I’m glad I found Road to Samarkand in my local library and this blog.

    Richard Dearlove was talking about Europe yesterday not Nevada, but hey I can see where he is coming from:

    “If Europe cannot act together to persuade a significant majority of its citizens that it can gain control of its migratory crisis then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising, which is already stirring”

    Its the “a popular uprising, which is already stirring” bit which is interesting.

    • fwl

      also worth remembering that Nevada is now offshore America i.e. home to what replaces Panama, namely the secret Asset Protection Trust. We know that offshore islands have lower standards.

  • fwl

    I like America with its town meeting and people getting stuck in. Keep pressing. Keep pressing. Keep pressing. Never give in never give up.

    Ps can anyone explain how the room vote is supposed to work?

    • fwl

      Wow, I got to the end of that video and she just says calls a shout out vote on whether to pass some emergency or temp convention rules and then after much louder opposition shouting than support she says you can’t challenge me and that the yes vote won (her voices wavers as she must know its just a blatant abuse and that’s a lynching scenario. What happened next? A vote as to who has got the loudest gun?

  • bevin

    Trump’s capacity for uttering the occasional truth is what many electors find endearing. Hillary never tells the truth except with bad intent (as Blake put it). Here he is as quoted at RT:
    “Presumptive Republican nominee for the US presidential election Donald Trump has attacked former Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Iraq War “disaster,” saying he did a “terrible job” by invading.
    “In an interview with ITV, Trump warned that the Chilcot Inquiry into the 2003 invasion, which will finally be published on July 6, will not look good for the former Labour PM.
    “I don’t see it as war crimes. I just think he goes down as somebody who did a terrible job.
    “[President George W.] Bush got us into it, that’s a terrible, terrible thing that happened,” he said.
    “Tony Blair made a mistake. You can’t just go in haphazardly. You folks got involved in that mess just as we did and now look at it.”
    “Trump said UK leaders should put the needs of their own country before that of America, and would get more respect if they stood up to US presidents.
    “I’m surprised somebody would see the Bush relationship as being that important.”

    The problem that the Democratic bosses face is that Hillary is very unlikely to win in a contest with Trump, whereas Sanders is likely to beat him easily.
    And then there is the real problem, which is that the people running the democratic party care very little who wins the Presidency, so long as nobody challenges their power locally, in the City or State machines that they run. So, while they would prefer Hillary-because that would give them some access to the White House and the federal patronage system- they wouldn’t have a problem with Trump, someone to whom they can relate.
    What they fear most is grassroots rebellion, an uprising like the one that propelled WJ Bryan in 1896. It is the idea of the voters declaring their independence from the Bosses, which is what the super delegates are or who they represent, that worries them. And that is why they will never support Bernie Sanders.
    Unless he is ready to revert to his independent status, reneging on his promise to support whoever the Convention nominates, (excusing himself by citing the numerous ways in which he and his supporters have been cheated by the Democratic Leadership) and run as an Independent or on the Green ticket.
    He ought to but the poor old bastard is 74 and a campaign would be very hard on him.
    On the other hand it would win him instant immortality and he might even win the race against candidates from two of the most detested institutions-the Democratic and Republican parties- in America.

  • bevin

    The NY Times knows who is to blame. Bernie:
    “Raising the prospect of lasting fissures in the Democratic Party, Senator Bernie Sanders rebuffed mounting pressure on Tuesday to rein in his supporters after they disrupted a weekend Democratic convention in Nevada, throwing chairs and later threatening the state party chairwoman in a fight over delegates. The uproar comes as Hillary Clinton is struggling to turn her and the party’s attention to the general election.

    “Mr. Sanders’s supporters showed no sign of backing down on Tuesday. In interviews, several threatened to disrupt the party’s convention in Philadelphia in July with protests and nonviolent disobedience over a nominating system that they say has treated Mr. Sanders unfairly. In emails, on social media and on websites, his supporters have traded advice about protest tactics and legal services in case of mass arrests.

    “Alarmed by the unrest in Nevada on Saturday, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that he spoke with Mr. Sanders for 10 minutes on Tuesday and that the Vermont senator faced a “test of leadership” over the behavior of his supporters. Mr. Reid, who represents Nevada, said he had urged Mr. Sanders to “do the right thing.”

    “But Mr. Sanders showed no sign of backing down, releasing a statement that, while condemning physical violence, accused the Democratic leadership in Nevada of using “its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place.”

    “The fight over the awarding of the state’s delegates underscored the determination of Mr. Sanders’s supporters to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain march to the nomination….. etc etc”

    • Martinned

      Awww, bless, he obviously condemns physical violence, but… Where have I heard that phrase before in this election cycle?

  • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

    Let’s face it, Bernie Sanders is turning out to be a covert stalking horse for The Donald.

    Perhaps if The Donald is elected, he can send Sanders to North Korea as the American Ambassador when relations are restored.

  • Richard

    Greg Pallast (Youtube and elsewhere) is fairly good on American election fraud. But that’s the States, and that’s their problem.

    Our problem is British election fraud, covert and overt in the sense that British leaders simple ignore the electorate when it suits them.

    If we have a problem with the States it is with their bullying. The more alert will have recently noticed an American President threatening Britain with economic warfare if she didn’t do as instructed and standing next to a grovelling British P.M. while doing it. If that’s what they are like in public, then what the hell goes on behind closed doors.

Comments are closed.