|
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 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? There is only so much you can manipulate before it becomes blatantly obvious. Biden simply lost by to much.
|
On February 07 2020 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +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-2016-215774Show nested quote +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.
Thanks. The JFA from 2015 was shady and definitely unethical.
|
On February 07 2020 01:19 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote: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)
The thing is GH did not do what you write here. His last post was a condescending almost insult, not an argument. He basically wrote, you are wrong, it's said you don't see you are wrong but if you try really hard mabe you can find the way into our club, who can see the world the way it is. I think it's in bad Form and ChristianS did not like it either. Anyway, I am not really providing anything of value either by discussing one post to death.
|
You could argue the DNC is just defending itself against Bernie. One of the reasons I am voting for Bernie is that I think he will totally flex his muscles to completely clean house. Perez, everyone, completely out the fucking window the day Bernie is elected. Throw the entire party into disarray by removing so many deeply seasoned operatives and whatnot. Wipe that fucker clean. All Bernie needs is a youtube channel.
Edit: I would be entirely happy if Bernie tossed the party into complete and total chaos day 1. I don't care if we don't get anything done the first 6 months. Just have Bernie hastily tossing out executive orders every day until we have an actual functioning party.
|
If you guys think it is a DNC conspiracy to say that Pete is leading in Iowa we should also recognize that Pete’s lead might very well be interpreted as the more interesting story. You don’t need pressure from shadowy DNC leaders applied to news networks to explain why some of them like the “Underdog surges into lead in Iowa” story.
|
|
|
On February 07 2020 03:03 IgnE wrote:
If you guys think it is a DNC conspiracy to say that Pete is leading in Iowa we should also recognize that Pete’s lead might very well be interpreted as the more interesting story. You don’t need pressure from shadowy DNC leaders applied to news networks to explain why some of them like the “Underdog surges into lead in Iowa” story. The conspiracy isn't saying Pete is in the lead, its altering reported numbers to show anyone but Bernie in the lead.
When the numbers show an underdog is in the lead is normal for media to dive on a good story.
|
On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning.
Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong?
And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'.
|
On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it quickly. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'.
Isn't this the first time they're using this app and this method of reporting votes? I would call that a growing pain. Also, the QC on this is terrible, as there should have been way more lead time in testing this to make sure they got what they needed, when they needed it, without any mishaps. I'll liken this to Anthem release or Fallout 76. Atrocious and they're still trying to get it right (although in the same vein, their issues arose years ago, same as the above mentioned titles).
I got cancer from accidentally ingesting water tainted with gasoline. I didn't stop drinking water because of that one incident. Same applies to this. You all scream for change and modernization and when it is attempted and goes awry, conspiracy theory crafting hour begins. They screwed the pooch in 2016, they're trying to fix that. Do we need to have blind faith in them? No. But allow them the chance to get it right this time.
Mi dos centavos.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'.
Very good points overall. This reeks of incompetence and makes you wonder just how accurate and true previous reports were.
|
Do people often scream for modernization when it comes to voting though? I feel as though most people (at least here) think its bizarre not to use something as comparably foolproof as paper when our attempts at technology + voting = dogshit so often.
I really wish I didnt have to feel so embarrassed about the US so often, but this kind of incompetence on so many levels makes it really hard not to.
|
The problem with the “let them get it right” angle is at least twofold: that tack ignores the extent to which each early primary is a component of a larger process that ebbs and flows in response to what happens. So yeah, there’s merit to getting it right eventually, but the same can also be said regarding the debacle’s impact on momentum. Conspiracy or not, the DNC and Iowa DSP fucked up royally, and I think they should be held accountable one way or another.
The second issue is that this debacle begs a ton of questions about how the Iowa Caucus has been historically administered. Are the problems due solely to the fact that they are reporting using new rules, or have the new rules revealed a pattern of fudging results that has only come to light because things are more transparent now? I’m not sure on that point, but it is definitely a curious development.
|
|
|
On February 07 2020 03:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it quickly. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. Isn't this the first time they're using this app and this method of reporting votes? I would call that a growing pain. Also, the QC on this is terrible, as there should have been way more lead time in testing this to make sure they got what they needed, when they needed it, without any mishaps. I'll liken this to Anthem release or Fallout 76. Atrocious and they're still trying to get it right (although in the same vein, their issues arose years ago, same as the above mentioned titles). I got cancer from accidentally ingesting water tainted with gasoline. I didn't stop drinking water because of that one incident. Same applies to this. You all scream for change and modernization and when it is attempted and goes awry, conspiracy theory crafting hour begins. They screwed the pooch in 2016, they're trying to fix that. Do we need to have blind faith in them? No. But allow them the chance to get it right this time. Mi dos centavos. Yes this was the first time for the app, so why was there no backup plan for if the app failed?
Or is this mess the backup plan? Cause that's not good either.
The problem is that with a videogame I can test it myself to see if there are issues and if there are I can wait a week/month/year and if it gets fixed I can play it.
Voters can't test if the results of the caucus are correct themselves. They have to trust the person telling them what the results are. Without that trust it all falls apart, which is also why modernization is going so slow in most of the world and why voting is still done on paper with a pencil.
Because that way is proven and safe. And that is more important then the convenience of a voting computer or an app.
On February 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. This is the first time they have done it in this way. And this is the first of the year. While I agree that the appearance of trust is important. This is what they used to value and would say as much and than people would all claim it was a conspiracy. When you make something transparent, that is complicated and has issues, those issues are going to be brought forward and corrected. Now if by the 5th or 10th one they are still a shit show I would change my opinion. But right now people are totally over reacting to this. Edit: and to farva I agree that it sucks, and it certainly opens the gate to questions like how fucked up has this been for how long? But I'd rather it get corrected than be ignorant and confident in past likely terrible information. Its ok to fuck up an election 5 times so long as you get there eventually? seriously?
Do you let a surgeon take a dozen stabs at removing your appendix before getting it right? Its ok, its not important to get it right the first time...
Fair elections is the lifeblood of a democracy, if you can't trust in an election to be fair you might aswell get a dictatorship and cut out all the busy work of manipulating the results.
Edit:The time to fix this was Tuesday with a public message of "we screwed up, we will stop reporting numbers and work together with all the candidates to check our numbers with the precincts and make sure everything is correct. We will report the results when we can confidently say they are correct" and then do that.
|
On February 07 2020 03:21 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. Very good points overall. This reeks of incompetence and makes you wonder just how accurate and true previous reports were.
Especially since in 2016 Bernie lost by .3% lol
|
The central problem is that the Iowa Democratic Party failed to see that a large chunk of people are living in an era of a reverse Hanlon's Law-our trust and faith in one another and our institutions is so low that our first reaction is to attribute anything that could be explained by incompetence to malice.
In such an environment transparency requires utter perfection-and even then, you will be called malicious by those who would rather your transparent process have created another result. Because ultimately, no amount of transparency is sufficient to eliminate fears that the process is rigged anymore. Prior convictions are just too strong. Just as no amount of evidence could convince some people that Sanders' compliments of Clinton in 2016 were genuine.
|
|
|
Tom Perez just demanded a recanvass because there were too many mistakes btw.
It's a good thing imo, no way those results could be trusted at this stage. Of course the timing of it happening, just when Bernie was poised to take the lead, ought to raise some questions (Perez said the first count will be finished still, but I'm sure the media coverage will talk about the recount more.)
Here's an issue though:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 07 2020 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it quickly. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. Isn't this the first time they're using this app and this method of reporting votes? I would call that a growing pain. Also, the QC on this is terrible, as there should have been way more lead time in testing this to make sure they got what they needed, when they needed it, without any mishaps. I'll liken this to Anthem release or Fallout 76. Atrocious and they're still trying to get it right (although in the same vein, their issues arose years ago, same as the above mentioned titles). I got cancer from accidentally ingesting water tainted with gasoline. I didn't stop drinking water because of that one incident. Same applies to this. You all scream for change and modernization and when it is attempted and goes awry, conspiracy theory crafting hour begins. They screwed the pooch in 2016, they're trying to fix that. Do we need to have blind faith in them? No. But allow them the chance to get it right this time. Mi dos centavos. Yes this was the first time for the app, so why was there no backup plan for if the app failed? Or is this mess the backup plan? Cause that's not good either. The problem is that with a videogame I can test it myself to see if there are issues and if there are I can wait a week/month/year and if it gets fixed I can play it. Voters can't test if the results of the caucus are correct themselves. They have to trust the person telling them what the results are. Without that trust it all falls apart, which is also why modernization is going so slow in most of the world and why voting is still done on paper with a pencil. Because that way is proven and safe. And that is more important then the convenience of a voting computer or an app. Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. This is the first time they have done it in this way. And this is the first of the year. While I agree that the appearance of trust is important. This is what they used to value and would say as much and than people would all claim it was a conspiracy. When you make something transparent, that is complicated and has issues, those issues are going to be brought forward and corrected. Now if by the 5th or 10th one they are still a shit show I would change my opinion. But right now people are totally over reacting to this. Edit: and to farva I agree that it sucks, and it certainly opens the gate to questions like how fucked up has this been for how long? But I'd rather it get corrected than be ignorant and confident in past likely terrible information. Its ok to fuck up an election 5 times so long as you get there eventually? seriously? Do you let a surgeon take a dozen stabs at removing your appendix before getting it right? Its ok, its not important to get it right the first time... Fair elections is the lifeblood of a democracy, if you can't trust in an election to be fair you might aswell get a dictatorship and cut out all the busy work of manipulating the results.
But you can't test a game until it is released and the devs start issuing patches to fix the errors they've found or have been told occurs. You have to wait to play the game regardless. Back to this voting nonsense, I agree the voters can't wait to get the results as this is very real consequences to them and it will undoubtedly affect things going forward.
There should have been a backup plan, that much I agree on. And before you or anyone else decides to put words in my post, I'm not a fan of the DNC by any stretch of the imagination. Let's see what the results say when all of it is in the clear. That's all I'm saying. Crafting conspiracies might be a fun past time for some, but I'm not a fan of grabbing the pitchfork and torches as the first response to something seeming amiss.
|
On February 07 2020 03:46 Nebuchad wrote:Tom Perez just demanded a recanvass because there were too many mistakes btw. It's a good thing imo, no way those results could be trusted at this stage. Of course the timing of it happening, just when Bernie was poised to take the lead, ought to raise some questions (Perez said the first count will be finished still, but I'm sure the media coverage will talk about the recount more.) Here's an issue though: + Show Spoiler + yeah I just saw that aswell. Redoing all the numbers is the only logical step, but that call should already have gone out yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
The only thing left is to look at how the final few delegates fall, likely between Sanders and Buttigieg (they may tie for first place in the delegate count, or one of them may end up with 1-4 more delegates than the other). 
