I said that there is no record of what happened on caucus night, so whether the victor was determined by the popular vote or delegate count was irrelevant.

But there fucking is documentation of what happened that night. You're the one refusing to believe it. And for what reason? Because the raw count wasn't recorded and released? That doesn't matter if the officials at each precinct did their jobs and assigned the delegates based on the popular vote precinct by precinct. the only reason you're skeptical of that process is, as far as I can tell, a serial distrust of the world around you and everyone in it.

No, you just struggle to understand what people read.

lol, So basically you don't know how to write so you're personally attacking me. That's cute.

If there are no records of an election and someone just declares that a candidate won with absolutely no evidence to show for it, yeah, that claim should probably be taken with skepticism.

But again, there ARE records. I linked them. You keep saying there are literally no records of what happened that night despite me giving you the delegate assignments.

So you don't know who lost but you know who lost? Who is the one who contradicts themselves again?

Where the fuck did I say I don't know who lost? I said the complete opposite. We know who won and lost because Clinton was awarded more delegates. The fantasy land conspiracy you're positing is that without the raw vote count it's possible the election officials on the ground conspired to manipulate the delegate

This is such a stupid conversation. Do you not see that your own argument is chasing its own tail? Even if they gave you the raw vote count, couldn't you just chalk that up to just taking their word for it, right? Like you're doing right now with the delegate allocation? After all, you weren't there to witness the votes cast, were you? What threshold amount of evidence do you need to be convinced Sanders fucking lost?