|
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 08 2020 01:12 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2020 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 01:04 Logo wrote:On February 08 2020 00:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 00:54 Logo wrote:On February 08 2020 00:33 farvacola wrote:
Indeed, given the current state of things, Bernie benefits from having Biden in the race while Pete is hot. Yes and no. At least previously Biden's supporters have had Sanders as the second choice. But it's unclear if that still holds (I couldn't find post-Iowa data), but if it did hold true then Sanders would have the most to gain from Biden dropping out. It's a bit of a weird state right now where Warren supports are digging in hard. Almost by definition, otherwise they would abandon her because she has no path to victory. It's unclear how much of her strong base remaining will go to Bernie given what Warren said/did and that Bernie is the obstacle that kept her from doing better (well besides herself). Biden supports are jumping ship, which we will probably continue to see, but by a lot of accounts 'electability' was their primary reason for support so they really only care about who the perceive as the likely winner. Which would be Bernie except for the media spin around Iowa. Pete diehards will never vote Bernie so they're just sort of out there doing their own thing. So it's good that Pete is in the race since his votes would never be Sander's anyways, but the media spin from Iowa is probably costing Sanders a lot of Biden people jumping ship and if Pete somehow wins NH then they'll probably start to solidify as Pete supporters which would be bad for Sanders. Seems like reasonable analysis. Problem for Pete after leaving NH (presuming he does well) is that he has ~0% Black support and that shows no sign of changing. Yeah but I really wouldn't want to take that bet as a Sander's supporter. If Pete wins NH + "wins" Iowa then the media narrative can override the hatred. Also 0% black support can just as easily mean that demographic doesn't vote in the primary. Winning NH is going to be really really important for Sanders I think, but if he does then Pete is probably going to be in real trouble. Not sure what hatred you're talking about? The hatred I mean is 0% Black Support Pete has. Maybe it's unfair to call it hatred, but if it's 0% support it sure seems like it :D.
I like the term "aggressive disinterest".
|
Wow Vindman and his brother both sacked from their jobs. The dictatorship is real.
|
On February 08 2020 09:40 Starlightsun wrote:
Wow Vindman and his brother both sacked from their jobs. The dictatorship is real.
Was there any official reason given, or is no one even trying to hide the fact that this is payback?
|
Doesn't give any reason in the article.. just that they were both escorted out of the WH.
|
United States24578 Posts
I heard earlier today that the reason cited was to decrease the size of the NSC, not payback. It's not terribly believable. Worth noting, "An Army spokesperson told NBC News, "We can confirm that both Lt. Cols. Vindman have been reassigned to the Department of the Army, out of respect for their privacy, we will not be providing any further information at this time.""
The word fired gets used a bit differently in these cases. They still have jobs... they are just not in their current assignments anymore.
|
Removing more and more keys to power, lovely.
|
Apparently it's the job of the bureaucracy to hamper the elected head of the executive branch. The fact people view these officials as legitimate obstacles is remarkable and needless to say when Democrats are in power, that view doesn't hold. Of course then again, those two things often work in tandem.
Meanwhile Democrats at the debate cheering Mitt Romney for courage. Amazing.
|
|
|
On February 08 2020 10:26 Gahlo wrote:
Removing more and more keys to power, lovely.
Thats not how keys to power works. I don't know why people would expect these guys to stay in their posts after the impeachment trial works. Its not like they lost their jobs they're just going to get reasigned somewhere else.
|
Vindmans brother had nothing to do with the impeachment lmao
|
On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me.
I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest.
Hobfoll has commented that he focused his research on Pete and Sanders because they're the two in the close race. It's very possible that there are mistakes for the other candidates that are being overlooked.
As you said the point is that the mistakes are there and so far not being dealt with.
|
Just a question, which may already have been answered: how do we know whose numbers are correct? I'd like to think the individual campaigns have less accurate means of getting those numbers than whatever notary is in charge of tallying up a county's results and sending them on to the state's central system. So while I don't doubt they do make mistakes, isn't it also possible that whatever numbers Sanders, Buttigieg and random twitterers are posting are simply wrong?
By no means am I saying this wasn't a total clusterfuck and at the very least, the counties in question need to be recounted, and preferably at this point, do a full recount. But I don't really see any reason to believe that all of the numbers campaigns are putting out are gospel truth and everything the IDC says is wrong.
I mean, the IDC has displayed incredible incompetence and I doubt their numbers too. But I am also skeptical about campaigns' numbers being unbiased.
|
On February 08 2020 16:31 Acrofales wrote:
Just a question, which may already have been answered: how do we know whose numbers are correct? I'd like to think the individual campaigns have less accurate means of getting those numbers than whatever notary is in charge of tallying up a county's results and sending them on to the state's central system. So while I don't doubt they do make mistakes, isn't it also possible that whatever numbers Sanders, Buttigieg and random twitterers are posting are simply wrong?
By no means am I saying this wasn't a total clusterfuck and at the very least, the counties in question need to be recounted, and preferably at this point, do a full recount. But I don't really see any reason to believe that all of the numbers campaigns are putting out are gospel truth and everything the IDC says is wrong.
I mean, the IDC has displayed incredible incompetence and I doubt their numbers too. But I am also skeptical about campaigns' numbers being unbiased.
They aren't posting different numbers. They're looking at the numbers that were posted on the IDP results site and concluding that based on the rules of the IDP for the caucuses, the delegates should have been allocated differently.
|
On February 08 2020 08:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2020 08:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote:
Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” I don't think that's the objective here. On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. What would likely happen even if it did is that people who already are convinced one way or another would still feel that way after. I say this because Bolivia had some extreme issues with their election far, far worse than this and the OAR did a preliminary report and than a far more expansive report like the one you are talking about. Some of the same people who are having big issues with the state of democracy regarding this issues are the same people saying that huge discrepancies were not at issue. The only difference is that in that situation the person who at one time was a socialist was the one who eventually was proven to have done the acts intentionally and it was the center left party that was being cheated. I would love to see a report and would keep a open mind, but the sad reality of today is if the results of the report were not what people have already decided, they would disregard that report, no matter how much care and effort was put into it.
Oh, I’m under no illusion that an investigation would convince people there was no conspiracy if they already believed in one. Reports like that never do. Conspiracy theorists don’t need supporting facts and don’t believe opposing facts as a rule. If anything, it’ll just give them an ocean of obscure facts to theorize about.
No, the investigation is desperately needed because they need to know exactly how they fucked up this badly, and how to never do it again. I mean, they’re the closest thing to a sane party in the greatest country most obsessed with describing itself in superlatives. There’s no excuse for them to not be world-class experts on how to run a secure election.
|
On February 08 2020 18:43 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2020 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On February 08 2020 08:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote:
Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” I don't think that's the objective here. On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. What would likely happen even if it did is that people who already are convinced one way or another would still feel that way after. I say this because Bolivia had some extreme issues with their election far, far worse than this and the OAR did a preliminary report and than a far more expansive report like the one you are talking about. Some of the same people who are having big issues with the state of democracy regarding this issues are the same people saying that huge discrepancies were not at issue. The only difference is that in that situation the person who at one time was a socialist was the one who eventually was proven to have done the acts intentionally and it was the center left party that was being cheated. I would love to see a report and would keep a open mind, but the sad reality of today is if the results of the report were not what people have already decided, they would disregard that report, no matter how much care and effort was put into it. Oh, I’m under no illusion that an investigation would convince people there was no conspiracy if they already believed in one. Reports like that never do. Conspiracy theorists don’t need supporting facts and don’t believe opposing facts as a rule. If anything, it’ll just give them an ocean of obscure facts to theorize about. No, the investigation is desperately needed because they need to know exactly how they fucked up this badly, and how to never do it again. I mean, they’re the closest thing to a sane party in the greatest country most obsessed with describing itself in superlatives. There’s no excuse for them to not be world-class experts on how to run a secure election.
There isn't going to be an investigation unless you have some information I haven't seen? We don't have international observers typically (or ever for primaries) so they can't write one either.
It is just going to be a completely botched election, with a sketchy grifter app, questionable counting/reporting, and so error riddled the AP won't call it.
|
On February 08 2020 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2020 18:43 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On February 08 2020 08:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote:
Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” I don't think that's the objective here. On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. What would likely happen even if it did is that people who already are convinced one way or another would still feel that way after. I say this because Bolivia had some extreme issues with their election far, far worse than this and the OAR did a preliminary report and than a far more expansive report like the one you are talking about. Some of the same people who are having big issues with the state of democracy regarding this issues are the same people saying that huge discrepancies were not at issue. The only difference is that in that situation the person who at one time was a socialist was the one who eventually was proven to have done the acts intentionally and it was the center left party that was being cheated. I would love to see a report and would keep a open mind, but the sad reality of today is if the results of the report were not what people have already decided, they would disregard that report, no matter how much care and effort was put into it. Oh, I’m under no illusion that an investigation would convince people there was no conspiracy if they already believed in one. Reports like that never do. Conspiracy theorists don’t need supporting facts and don’t believe opposing facts as a rule. If anything, it’ll just give them an ocean of obscure facts to theorize about. No, the investigation is desperately needed because they need to know exactly how they fucked up this badly, and how to never do it again. I mean, they’re the closest thing to a sane party in the greatest country most obsessed with describing itself in superlatives. There’s no excuse for them to not be world-class experts on how to run a secure election. There isn't going to be an investigation unless you have some information I haven't seen? We don't have international observers typically (or ever for primaries) so they can't write one either. It is just going to be a completely botched election, with a sketchy grifter app, questionable counting/reporting, and so error riddled the AP won't call it.
Do we happen to know if any other states are using the same app that was used in Iowa?
|
On February 08 2020 19:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2020 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 18:43 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On February 08 2020 08:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 08 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2020 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote:
Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” I don't think that's the objective here. On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. What would likely happen even if it did is that people who already are convinced one way or another would still feel that way after. I say this because Bolivia had some extreme issues with their election far, far worse than this and the OAR did a preliminary report and than a far more expansive report like the one you are talking about. Some of the same people who are having big issues with the state of democracy regarding this issues are the same people saying that huge discrepancies were not at issue. The only difference is that in that situation the person who at one time was a socialist was the one who eventually was proven to have done the acts intentionally and it was the center left party that was being cheated. I would love to see a report and would keep a open mind, but the sad reality of today is if the results of the report were not what people have already decided, they would disregard that report, no matter how much care and effort was put into it. Oh, I’m under no illusion that an investigation would convince people there was no conspiracy if they already believed in one. Reports like that never do. Conspiracy theorists don’t need supporting facts and don’t believe opposing facts as a rule. If anything, it’ll just give them an ocean of obscure facts to theorize about. No, the investigation is desperately needed because they need to know exactly how they fucked up this badly, and how to never do it again. I mean, they’re the closest thing to a sane party in the greatest country most obsessed with describing itself in superlatives. There’s no excuse for them to not be world-class experts on how to run a secure election. There isn't going to be an investigation unless you have some information I haven't seen? We don't have international observers typically (or ever for primaries) so they can't write one either. It is just going to be a completely botched election, with a sketchy grifter app, questionable counting/reporting, and so error riddled the AP won't call it. Do we happen to know if any other states are using the same app that was used in Iowa?
Nevada payed the scam artists that made it but they said they would find a new app, then when people told them how stupid that was, said they had several back up plans. We're just taking on faith they are better than Iowa's at this point as far as I can tell.
EDIT: Related story on the app company and Nevada:
Nevada Democrats are trying to figure out how to avoid the confusion and embarrassment that their fellow Democrats experienced in this week's Iowa caucuses.
Right after a new smartphone app failed miserably to transmit the Iowa results on Monday night, Nevada state Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II issued a statement saying "confidently" that what happened in Iowa would not happen in Nevada on Feb. 22, the date of its party caucuses.
"We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus," he said, even though the party had been working with the company behind the Iowa app for months to develop a system for collecting and reporting caucus votes. In fact, the Nevada state party had already paid the developer, Shadow Inc., more than $50,000.
It's unclear what Nevada Democrats will use instead...
www.npr.org
Worth remembering New Hampshire reported 2+ hour lines to vote in the evening for 2016 as well as other reported issues.
|
On February 08 2020 09:58 micronesia wrote:
I heard earlier today that the reason cited was to decrease the size of the NSC, not payback. It's not terribly believable. Worth noting, "An Army spokesperson told NBC News, "We can confirm that both Lt. Cols. Vindman have been reassigned to the Department of the Army, out of respect for their privacy, we will not be providing any further information at this time.""
The word fired gets used a bit differently in these cases. They still have jobs... they are just not in their current assignments anymore.
Here's Don Jr cheering for his dad firing everyone that participated in the hearings. It's definitely payback.
|
That's just cartoon villain level stuff. Wish I could say it was unbelievable.
|
Northern Ireland23845 Posts
Interestingly enough (to me anyway) a cursory search I just did for ‘Adam Schiff’ just to look at the chronology outlined above and a good 3 out of the first 10 results were of, let’s politely say extremely dubious validity.
I step outside my sanctum of this thread and my few podcasts for most of my news and current affairs for one search and the fake news is there front and centre. No wonder people believe ridiculous bloody things.
Tangent aside I wonder what odds you would get on Trump and his extended clan doing one genuinely classy, gracious thing for the rest of this term.
‘Haha you came after my dad and failed now you’re going to get fired’ basically just, eugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
