Does One Chair Lifted Over One’s Head Make a Riot???
This certainly isn’t the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago; but, there were a lot of angry people in Nevada.
“What I see is that the only thing holding those assh-les back, were the security people and the fence in front of them. That one man did indeed pick up a chair and raise it in the air and unless he was doing so so that his imaginary elf friend could sit down then I expect he was doing it to menace the people on the stage.” So Bagerite says in the comments section of May 22nd The Daily Banter New Video of Nevada Dem Convention Shows Someone May Have Been Hit By Chair. So where does this place Bernie Sander’s comment that “no one was touched?”
In the clips, you can see a chair over someone’s head and it is moving forward towards the stage. The levitating chair was stopped by two people before it could get past the fence. During the appearance of a little bit of upper butt-check, you can see Mr. Upper-Butt-Cheek bending over and helping someone up. Apparently a woman was knocked down during the take down of the person with the chair over his head (not to be confused with The Hora) in preparation for what? Since there was no one in the chair, one can assume it was ready to be flung somewhere.
I could not find it; but somewhere, someone is holding a piece of wood in the air also.
Anyhoo, judge for yourself.
One fart does not make a shit storm.
Bruce:
In the late sixties a “fart” in a big city was enjoy to keep us on base over a weekend and ready to deploy. Fortunately, other people prevailed in this instance.
What we are seeing the public finally understanding that democratic not the lessor evil. Knowing it’s the Clintons and Obamas putting the social safety net on the auction block.
A nefarious character on the BBC’s “Sherlock,” a newspaper magnate and blackmailer of the rich and powerful, said a great line: “I don’t have to prove it, I just have to print it. I’m in the news business, you moron.”
Yes, a raised chair is a riot — once the national media declares it is a riot.
I don’t watch the news anymore; rather, I read about the news being watched, which provides the distance to see how a narrative is created by those who are engaged in manufacturing “reality” to serve their own purposes. The first purpose is to make money from the news, as Les Moonves of CBS and Jeff Zucker of CNN freely admit. Thus the free ride of Trump and huge ratings for the networks who broadcast his inanities. The second purpose is to serve the interests of power, to manufacture the consent of the govern. When Bernie clearly threatens those interests, he must be tarnished. When he challenges the narrative that says it’s Hillary’s turn, he must be diminished.
So cell phone footage from NV is today’s Zapruder film? To be analyzed frame by frame?
Billmon observed that team HRCs decision to aggressively pursue these 2 delegates in NV would turn out to be expensive. Especially considering their prevailing “we’re winning” narrative. It begs the question.
AS:
So phone footage works for detailing police activity; but, it is not good enough for election convention activity??? Furthermore, I believe this was a Sanders supporter who filmed. The second sentence is not germane to the article.
The real issue here is that Bernie even in states he has won; it seems he does not receive the correct delegate count.
Of course what may be the end of Hillary is the Clinton Foundation. Which has been suggested to be an even bigger scandal than Madoffs. Or just plain fraud as suggested by Harvard MA Ortel.
More…………..http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/05/a-harvard-mba-guy-is-out-to-bring-down-the-clintons
Beene:
States make their own rules and there is a yhuge variation in them.
At this point it is a question of semantics.
The real question is whether anyone thinks that elections and the processes within should be decided by decibel levels and aggressive actions. Of course, that depends on your POV.
Sanders seems to have the appropriate response:
“Sanders has reached out to multiple Senate colleagues in an attempt to assuage them. Among them is Senator Barbara Boxer of California, whose keynote speech at the Nevada state Democratic convention last weekend was disrupted by rowdy Sanders supporters in a situation she described as frightening and out of control.
Boxer said she conveyed her concerns to Sanders in “a really nice talk” with him Tuesday. “I told him how bad it was in Nevada. He said he was distressed about it, and he expressed chagrin about it. I told him ‘Bernie, you need to get a hold of it,’ and he said he would.”
“He said, ‘I can’t believe my people would do this,'” said Boxer, who is stepping down from the Senate in January. “He got the point.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/sanders-defiant-on-the-stump-quietly-reassures-democrats-on-unity
EMichael:
He does one thing and not another. Will he “get a hold of it?” I have not seen anything yet and why should he do so before the convention?
The videos do not make clear what ignited the fracas in the first place. Maybe Boxer needs to understand that when she joined effort to disrupt the Sanders campaign by wholeheartedly supporting Clinton with little regard for primary voter support in specific states, she put herself on a pedestal as a target for voters who see their own preferences being over looked. Why the Democratic leadership has been so gung ho on Clinton is a mystery to me. Maybe they just like giving the crap slate offered by the Republicans a beneficial handicap. After all they are Republicans under the skin, even if not social conservative Republicans.
Jack:
I believe this is someone holding a cell phone and recording what was happening in the crowd. Nothing more.
I am becoming more and more sympathetic to a view I once disregarded: That the DNC and their corporate sponsors would rather put down Sander’s insurgency than win the general election.
Paranoid conspiracy? Ok maybe but I admit it explains much that has taken place in the last year.
I will say again in re: the main topic posting – It was 2 freaking delegates at stake. Which if you buy the HRC campaign’s “We’re the winners! Shut up you whiny losers” framing are essentially meaningless.
Unless of course it’s not actually about the mathematical number of delegates but in fact something else. Party Discipline Comrades!
Amateur Socialist: “It was 2 freaking delegates at stake.”
They were simply counting the votes. What are you suggesting? That the Democratic party officials should commit election fraud, not count the votes and simply hand over delegates to Sanders to appease his supporters? That’s your suggestion for democracy?
In 2008 the rules were simple: Florida and Michigan jumped the gun and so their delegates would not be seated. Hilary campaigned anyway and when the time came demanded that they be seated. This failed.
Either everything is political or everything is 100% rule based. And both candidates in 2016 have played both sides of that line. This cycle and the one two back.
Personally I have felt a little Chill on the Bern. But the claims by the Hilary side that “We are just playing by the rules” is a little laughable. The most charitable assessment of went down in Nevada is the Clinton campaign worked the Refs. Both interior to Party structures and outside (the Press).
This doesn’t fash me unduly, as the original Mr. Dooley observed: “Politics ain’t beanbag”
BillB: You say to-may-to I say to-mah-to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/30/cenk_uygur_barbara_boxer_doesnt_have_the_right_not_to_be_booed_–_it_is_time_to_get_louder.html
Let’s call the whole thing off!
For all your tender concerns about democracy and fraud you seem to be trying to legitimate a seriously dubious process. At least.
And I will say again, it at least begs the question, if team HRC is so confident in her “Winningness” was this tactic worth the price? Or just another day another unforced error?
Bruce Webb: “The most charitable assessment of went down in Nevada is the Clinton campaign worked the Refs.”
Explain what that means. Vague accusations are worthless.
They count the votes and then they award the delegates. There have been suggestions that the officials should not have counted the votes but instead committed election fraud and simply handed over delegates to Sanders to appease their supporters.
BillB multi-tier caucuses don’t work that way. Perhaps they should. But mostly you have a parallel process where people express preferences for candidates but elect delegates. Who may or may not be explicitly bound to that candidate at the next level.
In Washington State when I was there each precinct argued for its favored candidate (mine in 2004 voted for Dean) and sent that vote forward and then selected a delegate for the next level up. In our case we sent a young woman passionate about participating in the system who preferred some other candidate. Us few knew she would actually give a shit and show up and represent the values of the Party and so we overcame her objections (and our laziness) and sent her onwards and upwards.
In the case of Nevada the initial vote was for Hilary and the actual give a shit activists who showed up were for Bernie. Which also was according to the rules. Just as voters in the Electoral College can vote for whoever the hell they want – legally. Instead the Party Chair called for a voice vote and declared it for her preferred choice “Hil’s Have it!”
Now there is a solid argument against these kinds of multi-level caucuses. Why vote for intermediaries who are not actually bound to the democratic result of your precinct or district? Why have a delegate vote at the next level of the Convention process? Why indeed? But given that there is nominally such a vote to have the Chairperson stomp on normal order is not justified. Even if that result accords with the nominal gross votes of the underlying delegate selection process.
Direct democracy or representative democracy. There are arguments for both. But mostly we don’t want the elites choosing which work for their interests after the fact.
The democratic party elite simple want to control the elections regardless of what is wanted by citizens. Nothing speaks plainer than Hillary starting the process with 500 delegates.
Not only has the democratic party abandoned the middle class and the poor. now the democratic party says we will label what parts of capitalism is socialism and what parts are capitalism.
Bruce Webb, you started on the right track but went off the rails. The Nevada caucuses actually have three levels. There was the initial state caucus in February. Clinton clearly won that vote. There is no dispute about that. Everyone agrees that Clinton won the state-wide vote.
Next were the county conventions in April and in that round more Sanders delegates showed up so advantage to Sanders.
But in the final round for the state convention more Clinton delegates showed up. So, according to the rules Clinton got more delegates for the national convention.
Clinton clearly won the first round, the most democratic round involving individual voters. She also won the last round, the one that really counted. So the eventual results simply ratified the original intent of the voters.
The Sanders supporters attempted to overturn the intent of the voters and had some success in the second, county, round but ultimately failed in the third round, all within the rules of the Nevada caucuses. The votes were counted and they lost.
You can argue that caucuses are not the best way to select delegates but under the current rules, established years ago, Clinton clearly won. The idea that Sanders was cheated is a ridiculous conspiracy theory on par with shooting watermelons to prove Vince Foster was murdered.
Keep in mind, since you seem to be opposed to caucuses as “undemocratic”, that the only reason that Sanders was even in contention is because of his success in “undemocratic” caucuses. Sanders won 11 of 14 caucuses. He only won 10 of 32 primaries. The Sander supporters seem to be having a juvenile hissy fit because they failed to win every caucus.