Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Time for change

(13,718 posts)

12. I didn't present a theory. I presented facts, along with a link to a video of the Board meeting

Reply to brooklynite (Reply #10)

Sun May 1, 2016, 04:21 PM

May 2016

The poll asked for an interpretation of those facts.

I included in the poll answers all the possible options that I could think of.

If you know enough about this to call it a "conspiracy theory" (a common term used by people to deny facts that they don't like), then surely you must have an opinion as to which one of the options in the poll seems most likely to you. So which one is it?

By the way, it seems to me that if there is a conspiracy theory in this thread it is option # 4.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is your interpretation of the Chicago audit of Democratic primary election results? [View all] Time for change May 2016 OP

based on what we've seen so far mooseprime May 2016 #1

Not a matter for interpretation. A 70 vote discrepancy is fact. Kip Humphrey May 2016 #2

Only those who benefit from cheating would resist an audit. senz May 2016 #3

I'm waiting to see Bernie Sanders' challenge... brooklynite May 2016 #4

I'm not close enough to Bernie to know the answer to that Time for change May 2016 #6

I didn't, because I don't know the issue... brooklynite May 2016 #7

Any American who values democracy would care. senz May 2016 #9

Anyone would care if it was true...and not another conspiracy theory brooklynite May 2016 #10

I didn't present a theory. I presented facts, along with a link to a video of the Board meeting Time for change May 2016 #12

But we won't know until they investigate. senz May 2016 #13

Also Time for change May 2016 #14

I forgot to mention that Time for change May 2016 #5

Because MFM008 May 2016 #8

That's what the Republicans said in 2000 and 2004. senz May 2016 #11

This is very interesting Time for change May 2016 #15