2016 Postmortem

Time for change

(13,718 posts)

16. I don't understand your question

Sun May 22, 2016, 10:24 AM

May 2016

Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

The 58 delegates were all at the convention. When they were decertified based on the excuse that they were not legally registered Democrats, they strenuously objected to the decertification (because they all knew that they were legally registered Democrats), but Roberta Lange did not even give them a chance to defend themselves against the de-certification and the charge that they were not legally registered Democrats.

Furthermore, if they were not legally registered Democrats, how on earth did they ever get certified, first at the local level, and then at the county level?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton Delegate Whistleblower at NV State Convention: We Were Told [View all] Time for change May 2016 OP

Were the 58 Registered Democrats at the time of the convention? Renew Deal May 2016 #1

I don't understand your question Time for change May 2016 #16

This doesn't prove that the 58 were not decertified for a legitimate reason. Vattel May 2016 #2

If there is even a hint of impropriety, then the legitimacy of the action is in question. hobbit709 May 2016 #3

Even without a hint one campaign questions the legitimacy DrDan May 2016 #6

Watch Roberta Lange In Action... The Video Speaks Volumes... She Is As Corrupt As The Day Is Long! CorporatistNation May 2016 #13

Here IS The Chaos... Fomented By Corruption At The VERY TOP! Watch IT! CorporatistNation May 2016 #14

Exactly - she should give in to the temper tantrums DrDan May 2016 #18

They questioned the legitimacy because they knew they were registered Democrats Time for change May 2016 #21

If not a registered dem - then decert is appropriate DrDan May 2016 #23

Apparently you didn't understand my question Time for change May 2016 #27

From what I understand they where at one point. TimPlo May 2016 #35

True, and it should be investigated. But the OP seemed to suggest that Vattel May 2016 #11

It was illegitimate to tell the Hillary surrogates that they could purge anybody they want Time for change May 2016 #29

The Whistleblower says on the video that the Hillary delegates were told Time for change May 2016 #17

I agree that they shoud have been given a chance to contest the decertification. Vattel May 2016 #22

The burden of proof should be the other way around. Time for change May 2016 #24

You may be right. IDK Vattel May 2016 #25

kick kgnu_fan May 2016 #4

I don't want that cabal running the country. HooptieWagon May 2016 #5

+1! nt nc4bo May 2016 #8

We will never get a proper treatment of this by the msm. But no matter - they are irrelevant. reformist2 May 2016 #7

There has been a lawsuit filed on it Time for change May 2016 #15

Problem with law suites in these matters is Ferd Berfel May 2016 #20

I believe that it's been contested also Time for change May 2016 #26

That would be different Ferd Berfel May 2016 #28

File under sketchy campaign literature. ucrdem May 2016 #9

Kick. MaeScott May 2016 #10

BBox trolls Bernie supporters, Lange rewrites the rules like a dictator...hey look, a folding chair. Snarkoleptic May 2016 #12

K&R EndElectoral May 2016 #19

There is no excuse for NV to have happened felix_numinous May 2016 #30

I don't understand why so many Hillary supporters here not only tolerate this but Time for change May 2016 #31

It is one thing for a candidate to be compulsively lying felix_numinous May 2016 #32

Thank you, Felix Time for change May 2016 #33

Online disruptors felix_numinous May 2016 #34