|
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 22 2020 09:37 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 09:34 LegalLord wrote:
If there’s any candidate who embodies the tone-deaf generic “establishment” criticism of Bernie, it’s definitely Boomberg. He is playing right into the story Bernie is telling, and is none the wiser. He might as well be vocalizing the DNC’s private email conversations about how they don’t like Sanders.
Not the first billionaire to campaign for president, but certainly the least self-aware. He’s, by orders of magnitudes a much worse candidate on the trail than I was expecting, thank god. I had thought/feared there would be a degree of slickness to a billionaire who could buy the best PR firms going but he’s so completely tone-deaf he makes a better argument that billionaires are a borderline other species than any amount of firey lefty invective could.
Seems to be suffering from Clinton-syndrome, where he's completely unable to realize how much the world changed in the last, what, 6 years? Compare politics today to 2014.
Imagine if, in 2014, I told you an endorsement from the DNC chair was among the worst endorsements a candidate could get. You'd be kind of confused.
|
Norway28817 Posts
Steyer was so much better than Bloomberg..
|
On February 22 2020 09:37 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 09:34 LegalLord wrote:
If there’s any candidate who embodies the tone-deaf generic “establishment” criticism of Bernie, it’s definitely Boomberg. He is playing right into the story Bernie is telling, and is none the wiser. He might as well be vocalizing the DNC’s private email conversations about how they don’t like Sanders.
Not the first billionaire to campaign for president, but certainly the least self-aware. He’s, by orders of magnitudes a much worse candidate on the trail than I was expecting, thank god. I had thought/feared there would be a degree of slickness to a billionaire who could buy the best PR firms going but he’s so completely tone-deaf he makes a better argument that billionaires are a borderline other species than any amount of firey lefty invective could.
He's very much giving teeth to the fiery lefty invective. All those years of Sanders talking like a madman about billionaire crooks playing by their own rules and buying elections, and then enters the billionaire who... is clearly a crook, plays by his own rules, and is clearly trying to buy the election. Not that people weren't already starting to buy the Sanders message, but it becomes just so much more obvious when the target of Sanders' rants just comes out and shows that Sanders was right all along.
|
On February 22 2020 10:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Steyer was so much better than Bloomberg..
I could see Steyer-chan showing up at one point by spending $100M on lawyers for Bernie at a contested convention or something like that. Steyer is clearly Bernie's biggest fan, so I am not counting him out yet.
Remember, this election is an anime. A character like Steyer doesn't just go away.
|
I like Steyer, in a sort of "I wouldn't vote for him, but I respect the campaign and good faith attempt" sort of way. He doesn't really offer anything I was looking for, but he had a respectable run.
|
On February 22 2020 10:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 10:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Steyer was so much better than Bloomberg.. I could see Steyer-chan showing up at one point by spending $100M on lawyers for Bernie at a contested convention or something like that. Steyer is clearly Bernie's biggest fan, so I am not counting him out yet. Remember, this election is an anime. A character like Steyer doesn't just go away.
Steyer is probably going to top 3 SC, maybe even 2nd if Biden loses big in Nevada
|
Bloomberg trying to do an interview with Sharpton is interesting. My impression is that Al Sharpton does not "represent" Black People the way he supposedly used to. I am not convinced Bloomberg has a reasonable path to being labeled anything other than terrible by POCs. I admit I know very little about Sharpton, but this feels like it won't have its intended benefit.
You just can't get away from this:
"The way you should get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them," Bloomberg said in unearthed audio from 2015.
“Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops," he added. "They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/484155-bloomberg-to-do-interview-with-al-sharpton
|
On February 22 2020 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nevada is having the people in charge of the caucuses sign NDA's
This is important because the critical reporting and math errors in Iowa were in many cases exposed by that person for various caucus sites there.
Yep, that's appalling.
There's no way we don't at least get the edges of whatever goes on via random minor officials and voters. Caucuses are pretty public. I predict a total trainwreck a few days after a very suspicious result, which is later accepted anyway.
At this point the dems are basically beta testing for Trump's electoral fraud team in the general. I wonder if they realise.
|
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications.
|
On February 22 2020 12:02 TentativePanda wrote:
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications.
You're a hero for calling and asking all those questions. Really cool to hear. Take a break, I've done the same. I've been considering taking a week off. It's just so much.
|
On February 22 2020 12:02 TentativePanda wrote:
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications.
Well, that's pretty pedestrian.
Makes sense, would be nice if we could see a copy of the NDA agreement, but I'd want everyone managing it to sign that NDA if that's the case.
Thanks for taking the time to make sure we're educated
|
|
|
On February 22 2020 13:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 12:02 TentativePanda wrote:
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications. You're a hero for calling and asking all those questions. Really cool to hear. Take a break, I've done the same. I've been considering taking a week off. It's just so much.
Thank you that sort of support is nice to hear. I'm generally nervous about doing things like this, though have gotten better in the recent years, but I've become so invested I'm being driven to get involved. I havent felt this passionate about anything in life previously and I feel like Im just starting to understand what people say about finding something youre passionate about lol. Too bad its something that really stresses me out though
On February 22 2020 13:23 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 12:02 TentativePanda wrote:
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications. Well, that's pretty pedestrian. Makes sense, would be nice if we could see a copy of the NDA agreement, but I'd want everyone managing it to sign that NDA if that's the case. Thanks for taking the time to make sure we're educated
Thank you. And I believe the language of the NDA *is* out. Might have to look for it on Twitter, but you can read it.
|
On February 22 2020 13:23 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 12:02 TentativePanda wrote:
I actually called the Nevada Dem Party phone number and talked with someone in the Voter Protection department who reassured me (though this would be expected in any case) that the NDAs are to protect voter information, and existed in the past as well - arent new this year. I asked her why they werent used in Iowa, why they extend outside of the caucus activity and more. She said they werent using it to hide real numbers without me asking and did seem genuine in her answers to my questions.
That being said, I dont think theyd hire a bad liar for such a job if they were conspiring.
Additionally with all the shitty news today I think I'm gonna step away from following the DNC race as actively/passionately. Its giving me serious anxiety and stress complications. Well, that's pretty pedestrian. Makes sense, would be nice if we could see a copy of the NDA agreement, but I'd want everyone managing it to sign that NDA if that's the case. Thanks for taking the time to make sure we're educated
It's more expansive than just protecting private voter information, even their own explanation indicates it is hiding 'strategic' information. Which is typically understandable but presents specific problems with caucus leaders exposing the kind of information that helped expose the fraud in Iowa.
They are also being referred to as "non-disparagement" agreements because apparently they can't say anything that makes the Democrats look bad.
|
Sorry, no. They could play the nothing-to-see-here card before Iowa. Not now. At this point, it's guilty until proven innocent as far as I'm concerned.
This is not helping their case one bit, and they know it if their reps are bringing it up unasked.
|
The more I read about this process, the dodgier it seems. The WaPo has a decent bit about it and it seems particularly damning.
I can see an NDA being used. The volunteers have access to sensitive voter information that needs to be protected. So an NDA that covers voter info makes sense. The WaPo piece also makes a case for the hotline number being kept secret (and thus asking volunteers not to disclose it).
However, what I have seen makes it clear the NDA goes well beyond such simple common sense uses. Moreover, people say it's optional to sign (but it really isn't). If it's to protect voter privacy, it shouldn't be optional. In fact, a voluntary NDA seems entirely pointless: either an NDA is to protect sensitive information, in which case it should not be optional to sign. Or an NDA is optional, in which case it isn't protecting sensitive information, and nobody should bother signing it.
But it having clauses about not disparaging the DNC is pathetic. The poll workers are volunteers. To volunteer in this means you are pretty heavily involved in the Democratic party and want the best for it. So any disparaging from those volunteers essentially means you really really really fucked up. Don't try to silence that (not to mention that it'll just Streisand effect all over you anyway), accept the criticism and strive to be better.
WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/21/nevada-ndas/
|
On February 22 2020 19:15 Acrofales wrote:
But it having clauses about not disparaging the DNC is pathetic. The poll workers are volunteers. To volunteer in this means you are pretty heavily involved in the Democratic party and want the best for it.
I'm not sure how you can read this thread and get to this conclusion. Here it feels like the majority of the participants in the democratic primary want to burn down the party...
|
Not really, they just disagree what is best for the party.
And the volunteers at the poll are only a small, invested subset of the people voting at the primary. So think Acrofales point is very valid.
|
On February 22 2020 19:39 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2020 19:15 Acrofales wrote:
But it having clauses about not disparaging the DNC is pathetic. The poll workers are volunteers. To volunteer in this means you are pretty heavily involved in the Democratic party and want the best for it. I'm not sure how you can read this thread and get to this conclusion. Here it feels like the majority of the participants in the democratic primary want to burn down the party...
We want to burn down the party if it deserves it. If it uses NDAs to cover up real voting records to rig the caucus (again), then yes the party deserves to be burnt down
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I dunno why I get the bizzare feeling that Bernie will be shut out again like in 2016, aka he won't win the nomination. All the issues that have arisen over the last couple of weeks including this latest one seem to point to that conclusion. Granted, I'm not sure he could've fought against Trump and won, meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
