[responsivevoice voice=”UK English Female” buttontext=”Play”]
For those who haven’t been keeping up, the Nevada Democratic Convention didn’t go well – to say the least. 58 of Sanders’ delegates were excluded from the Convention, and Nevada ended up going to Clinton. For those who have been keeping up, you’re aware that this resulted in a heated protest from the majority of the crowd, which the mainstream media has since twisted into full-on “violence,” but as usual, the mainstream media can’t be trusted.
How Delegates Affect the Vote:
Before we can even continue, readers need to understand what delegates are, and how they affect the vote. For those who are already aware, feel free to jump ahead, but for the rest of you, here’s the quick version:
In the Democrat system (which is different from Republican), citizen’s votes only go so far. If a candidate has more delegates (individuals chosen to represent them) in a state, then the voter’s opinion doesn’t really count. For example, in Wyoming, Bernie Sanders won with 56% of the votes, but the state’s delegates awarded Clinton 11, and Sanders 7.
How are delegates chosen? By us. However, when citizens vote for delegates, they aren’t always informed on who the delegate supports. It’s literally a blind vote.
John Oliver also covers the issue in his usual, humorous fashion:
58 Bernie Delegates Barred From the Vote:
58 delegates for Bernie Sanders were barred from entering the Convention and taking a seat. Some were barred because, supposedly, their personal information such as address, date of birth, and even name, couldn’t be verified. Others were barred from voting because they were not registered as Democratic voters by May 1st, a deadline that was set after it had already passed, according to Oliver’s report in the video above.
Aside from a good portion of Sanders’ delegates being barred, it seems there were other issues as well; It’s mentioned in the following videos that many other people were denied access to casting a vote, with one Sanders-supporter reporting that when she attempted to hand ballots out, she was shoved by a Clinton-supporter who wanted to prevent her from doing so.
The real profound issue, however, and what made Sanders-supporters so angry, was in regards to a motion that had been made for a proper delegate recount due to the issues above, and this motion was seconded, meaning it should have gone up for a vote. Instead, Roberta Lange, the Nevada State Democratic Chair, ignored the motion for a recount and elected for a series of temporary rule changes, which included putting herself into power so she could overrule people’s motions, according to reports. This was seconded by one of her staff, and so it went into a vote.
In the following video, listen as Roberta Lange calls for her vote and ignores the overwhelming “nays” that are resounding from the crowd. Lange then goes on to state their decision to incorporate the new rules was “not debatable.” This is why citizens were angry:
Democracy Is Dead: Crooked Hillary Clinton Rigs Nevada Democratic Convention:
Roberta Lange Illegally Ends Nevada Convention #nvdemconvention:
Sources (provided in the links above) indicate that legal action will most likely be taken.
Bernie Supporters Supposedly Violent:
There’s no doubt that citizens at the Convention were pissed-off; they had every right to be. People still want to believe their votes count, and yet with every election, it seems as though there’s a new scam. Were people yelling? Hell yeah, they were. Were they throwing chairs as reports are suggesting? No. Was anyone arrested for throwing chairs or engaging in any form of violence? No, again.
There’s one video clip of a man lifting a chair. The clip then shows the man put the chair down, and according to those present, he gave another man in front of him a hug. Not exactly violent, and yet, that’s the mainstream media’s story, and they’re sticking to it. Even Snopes.com has an entry that says the accusation of chair-throwing is false.
The rumor apparently started with a Nevada reporter and Clinton-supporter, John Ralston, before it spread through the media like wildfire. The following discussion outlines the situation:
“Bernie Supporter Confronts Vegas Reporter On Rachel Maddow”:
Bernie Accused of Supporting Violence:
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made the comment to CNN that “regardless of any campaign frustration over process, there should never be a ‘but’ when it comes to condemning violence and intimidation.” Wasserman-Schultz is referring to the statement Sanders made in response to the incident in Nevada, insinuating to those she hopes never heard his statement that he added a “but” and then continued on with some sort of approval of violence. This never happened.
In his response to the situation:
“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.” – Senator Bernie Sanders
Literally, the word “but” is not present in that statement. At no point did Sanders condone the so-called “violence” that took place in Nevada; in fact, he did the opposite. And yet Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a known supporter of Hillary Clinton, claims that Sanders’ statement is unacceptable—that he basically supports violence and imaginary chair-throwing. And again, this warped interpretation is spreading through the media like a plague.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Doubles Down On Bernie Lies:
For the rest of you Clinton-supporters out there, we can hear the rebukes now; however, when it comes down to it, this report is not about Sanders and Clinton themselves, but a crooked establishment and broken voting system that needs to be fixed. There’s nothing we can do in the middle of an election, but after this election is over, no matter the outcome, we as Americans can’t forget about the problem until the next election comes along. We need to call for a change now, because even if our corrupt voting system is working in your favor at the moment, there’s a good chance it won’t next time.
You want to support Anonymous Independent & Investigative News? Please, follow us on Twitter: Follow @AnonymousNewsHQ
This Article (The Nevada Democratic Convention, Blatant Corruption, and Mainstream Media Propaganda) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.