|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 06 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote:
Romney has positioned himself to be the reps saviour if trump ever flames out in the eyes of reps, which is not the worst bet considering his volatility.
Mormons generally have been the traditional republican group that have put up the least with Trump's behavior, Romney has never liked Trump's behavior and early on struggled not just be the voice of dissent with-in the Trump-GOP, this doesn't seem like political maneuvering just consistency, that or Mcconnell couldn't shut him up.
Also i don't think it's bizarre that the democratic leadership aren't behind Sanders. Sanders often caused with the democrats was for the longest time far to liberal to be in the established democratic party and was an independent who only registered democrat when he wanted to run for president. Not saying it's good or bad just saying i'm not surprised.
|
On February 06 2020 17:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Some more reported errors here:
Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version.
|
On February 06 2020 18:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote:
Romney has positioned himself to be the reps saviour if trump ever flames out in the eyes of reps, which is not the worst bet considering his volatility. Mormons generally have been the traditional republican group that have put up the least with Trump's behavior, Romney has never liked Trump's behavior and early on struggled not just be the voice of dissent with-in the Trump-GOP, this doesn't seem like political maneuvering just consistency, that or Mcconnell couldn't shut him up. Also i don't think it's bizarre that the democratic leadership aren't behind Sanders. Sanders often caused with the democrats was for the longest time far to liberal to be in the established democratic party and was an independent who only registered democrat when he wanted to run for president. Not saying it's good or bad just saying i'm not surprised. I get they aren't behind Sanders, and the previous election I argued with GH that the DNC is under no obligation to like Sanders or want Sanders to be their candidate but there is a difference between wishing Sanders doesn't win the nomination and trying to alter results to take away delegates from Sanders, which its starting to look like is happening.
|
On February 06 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version.
Out of curiosity, who is Jordan Hobfoll? I'm just wondering how he knows all of this/ how reliable of a source he is.
|
On February 06 2020 19:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version. Out of curiosity, who is Jordan Hobfoll? I'm just wondering how he knows all of this/ how reliable of a source he is.
He has one in his list that I don't think is a mistake, because that was a caucus for a single delegate and those seem to have been reported differently (a lot of them show the delegate going to someone when someone else has more votes).
The rest seem to be clear mistakes to me, and the data is available to check (https://results.thecaucuses.org). If you open the thread that I linked he also explains what each mistake is more specifically.
He's a Bernie supporter but other than that I think he's a random.
|
On February 06 2020 19:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 19:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version. Out of curiosity, who is Jordan Hobfoll? I'm just wondering how he knows all of this/ how reliable of a source he is. He has one in his list that I don't think is a mistake, because that was a caucus for a single delegate and those seem to have been reported differently (a lot of them show the delegate going to someone when someone else has more votes). The rest seem to be clear mistakes to me, and the data is available to check (https://results.thecaucuses.org). If you open the thread that I linked he also explains what each mistake is more specifically. He's a Bernie supporter but other than that I think he's a random.
Okay thanks  Also, do all the -Pete and +Bernie decimals mean that Pete should have fractions of delegates less than he was given, and Bernie should have more? Maybe they just rounded to the nearest whole delegate every time, or something?
|
On February 06 2020 19:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 19:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 06 2020 19:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version. Out of curiosity, who is Jordan Hobfoll? I'm just wondering how he knows all of this/ how reliable of a source he is. He has one in his list that I don't think is a mistake, because that was a caucus for a single delegate and those seem to have been reported differently (a lot of them show the delegate going to someone when someone else has more votes). The rest seem to be clear mistakes to me, and the data is available to check (https://results.thecaucuses.org). If you open the thread that I linked he also explains what each mistake is more specifically. He's a Bernie supporter but other than that I think he's a random. Okay thanks Also, do all the -Pete and +Bernie decimals mean that Pete should have fractions of delegates less than he was given, and Bernie should have more? Maybe they just rounded to the nearest whole delegate every time, or something?
Yes that's what they did but they're supposed to give the next whole delegate to the person who is closest to the .5 decimal, and in most of these cases the problem is that this isn't what happened.
Also his list was updated with a few more errors that benefitted Bernie this time so it still doesn't look very conspiratorial to me. The only thing kind of suspicious is the timing of the release, those just seem like mistakes.
|
On February 06 2020 19:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 19:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2020 19:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 06 2020 19:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Full results are due this morning allegedly. We'll see if that estimate includes the error riddled results they've put out or a corrected version. Out of curiosity, who is Jordan Hobfoll? I'm just wondering how he knows all of this/ how reliable of a source he is. He has one in his list that I don't think is a mistake, because that was a caucus for a single delegate and those seem to have been reported differently (a lot of them show the delegate going to someone when someone else has more votes). The rest seem to be clear mistakes to me, and the data is available to check (https://results.thecaucuses.org). If you open the thread that I linked he also explains what each mistake is more specifically. He's a Bernie supporter but other than that I think he's a random. Okay thanks Also, do all the -Pete and +Bernie decimals mean that Pete should have fractions of delegates less than he was given, and Bernie should have more? Maybe they just rounded to the nearest whole delegate every time, or something? Yes that's what they did but they're supposed to give the next whole delegate to the person who is closest to the .5 decimal, and in most of these cases the problem is that this isn't what happened. Also his list was updated with a few more errors that benefitted Bernie this time so it still doesn't look very conspiratorial to me. The only thing kind of suspicious is the timing of the release, those just seem like mistakes.
Gotcha, thanks
|
It could certainly turn out to be reporting bias. Sanders's supporters are obviously going to be more vocal on Twitter. Perhaps all the Biden supporters are calling each others' landlines and snail-mailing around notes complaining about the same thing.
So far it still looks suspicious to me. We'll find out eventually. If it is suspicious, it is an enormous problem.
|
On February 06 2020 19:51 Belisarius wrote:
It could certainly turn out to be reporting bias. Sanders's supporters are obviously going to be more vocal on Twitter. Perhaps all the Biden supporters are calling each others' landlines and snail-mailing around notes complaining about the same thing.
So far it still looks suspicious to me. We'll find out eventually. If it is suspicious, it is an enormous problem.
I'm sure the news cycle will roll past it, it'll happen again, and it'll be one of many of Trumps talking points that he'll exaggerate but there will be enough truth to it to work.
|
With the satellite caucuses coming in, that stupid NYT needle shows Sanders winning the whole damn Iowa thing :D
|
On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Show nested quote +Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse.
Couldn’t have worded it better. That was actually beautiful
|
On February 06 2020 23:29 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse. Couldn’t have worded it better. That was actually beautiful
I would take what GH wrote and apply it right back at him. He is so entrenched in his world view that he is not able see past it. What's annoying about it is the absolute authority he demands for it, for example by belittling christianS for his worldview in this post. But I am glad you liked the form of his minor insult.
|
On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Show nested quote +Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse.
Good morning!
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried arguing it out with somebody who believes in, like, chemtrails before. The discussion inevitably hits a note a lot like this one. You tell them “that’s a lot of interesting theorizing you’ve done, but foundationally, the evidence to support it is weak,” and they say “the evidence isn’t weak! It’s overwhelming! Look in the sky right now! You’re just blinded to it by [brainwashing/fluoride/some other boogeyman].” In other words, if you don’t agree with them, it must be because there’s something wrong with you, like a learning disability.
I generally like your posting a lot, GH. I agree with you on quite a bit, and where I don’t, or haven’t decided, I still greatly value your perspective. It’s one of the bigger reasons I came back to the thread. But you have this unfortunate tendency to look at people who disagree with you, and not see people who disagree with you, but pilgrims who have not yet completed their journey to agreeing with you. So you say “I think [argument]” and they say “well I think [counterargument]” and you respond “oh, you haven’t figured this one out yet? That’s okay, you’ll get there. I believe in you.” You don’t do it all the time, and you’re generally pretty cordial about it; lest I be misinterpreted by Seeker or someone, I don’t think there’s anything moderation-worthy about it. But it’s condescending, and unpleasant. Even if you actually are right, and they’re wrong, it still does nothing to advance the conversation or convince them.
I should probably try to take a break from the thread today. I don’t think I’ve gotten much out of the discussion, it’s certainly been pretty unpleasant, and judging from your and others’ reactions, people aren’t especially interested in hearing my perspective. But thanks for trying to explain what you think is wrong with me; I just wish you’d take opposing arguments on their face a little more instead of seeing them as mile markers on people’s pilgrimages.
|
Marianne Williamson just posted this on Facebook if anyone's interested:
(its more revealing and honest than I would have expected from a former candidate)
In 2016 the DNC put their fingers on the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton. If they had not done that, then either Hillary or Bernie would’ve won the nomination but either way, people would have felt good enough about the integrity of the process and Donald Trump would not be president today. This year they’re doing the same thing, seeking to dictate the process in ways that manipulate and suppress democracy.
From the very beginning of the campaign season, the debate rules distorted the ability of voters to hear from the candidates the way they should’ve been able to. The debates are little more than a reality TV show pitting candidates into a financial contest with each other rather than maximizing the ability of candidates to truly reveal themselves and their policies to voters. Things are manipulated in all kinds of ways. We have the modern equivalent of men with cigars sitting in a back room deciding who the candidate will be.
It is basically the same car crash as last time, but this year it is lasting longer and we get to see it in slow motion. There are those in this country who proffer truly dangerous ideas in the political sphere, but there are others who just is dangerously suppress democracy - and democracy, when it is allowed to work, is the immune system that casts out the worst ideas. Certain forces on the right have no respect for democracy, while certain forces on the left have no faith in it. So here we are.
Having spent a year in the belly of the beast, and in this case that phrase feels quite literal, I am left with a sick feeling regarding all the craziness in Iowa. I fear this has less to do with an app and more to do with an aptitude. Watch New Hampshire very, very closely. And pray for America. We’re going through a very dark night of the American soul. I have no doubt that dawn will come, but for that to happen the American people are going to have to wise up and grow up. It’s our choice when dawn arrives.
|
Orbgangers for Bernie represent!
|
On February 07 2020 01:11 farvacola wrote:
Orbgangers for Bernie represent!
Hehe orbganger for Bernie.
That is exactly how I would describe myself.
|
Is there any information about what specifically the DNC did to "put their fingers on the scale" either in 2016 or in Iowa? Absent such information it seems a lot likelier that what happened in Iowa was due to incompetence, not maliciousness.
Also if they had that ability why do people think they didn't help Biden, who is generally considered the establishment friendly choice?
|
On February 07 2020 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2020 23:29 TentativePanda wrote:On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse. Couldn’t have worded it better. That was actually beautiful I would take what GH wrote and apply it right back at him. He is so entrenched in his world view that he is not able see past it. What's annoying about it is the absolute authority he demands for it, for example by belittling christianS for his worldview in this post. But I am glad you liked the form of his minor insult.
Can’t speak for GH other than this conversation, as I don’t post here often enough.
What I liked about it is that it pointed out what is often the root of political disagreements. People “disagree” on fundamental propositions. For example, what should be prioritized in an argument like the one above. Me (and others) think there is an issue with the DNC using “we don’t have to promise fairness, so we can’t be investigated as to whether it was fair or not” as a defense, while ChristianS thinks it’s fine simply because it’s legally correct.
Now, the reason I use quotes around “disagree”, is because GH, I and others believe there is a more correct preposition here - namely, ours. I guess I shouldn’t speak for them, but imo it’s logically incorrect to be obedient to authority that appears to be supported arbitrarily (or in this case, wrongfully). GH is arguing ChristianS tendency toward defending such a legal argument versus supporting a common sense, logical argument is a false preposition.
Didn’t take too much time to type this out too concisely, but I think the point is clear enough for a smart guy like yourself (not sarcasm)
|
On February 07 2020 01:14 Mercy13 wrote:
Is there any information about what specifically the DNC did to "put their fingers on the scale" either in 2016 or in Iowa? Absent such information it seems a lot likelier that what happened in Iowa was due to incompetence, not maliciousness.
Also if they had that ability why do people think they didn't help Biden, who is generally considered the establishment friendly choice?
2016:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
So I followed the money.
As regards Iowa, I don't have any information except that a former candidate has come out and said what she said..
However, I would ask the question whether or not you think it is likely that everything you have seen from official channels about this process has been meticulously designed from a PR angle, by the DNC as well as others, to push some candidates over others...
I have literally zero doubt that that is what the Primary process is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
