If your greatest concern is election integrity

[Bno]

then tonight is a great example of why you should have more concern for domestic interference than foreign interference. We have exponentially the most undemocratic voting process, especially the Democratic primaries.

[Joel3102]

BUT RUSSIAN BOTS!!!!!

Trump is gonna have a field day with this, and rightly so.

[Bodigger]

If you like your caucus, then you can keep your caucus....LOL.

[Forestluv]

@Bno It's certainly a mess, yet I wouldn't necessarily categorize it as "interference". Part of it is due to trying a new vote entry system, part is due to incompetence, part is due to the haphazard nature of of caucuses. These caucuses involve a bunch of people calling out for their preferred candidate. Vote counts are often by people raising their hands or estimating how many people are sitting in a cluster of support in one section of bleachers. Vote counts are scribbled on paper and electronically entered - often by elderly people in their 70s. This atmosphere is like a high school circus. . . What if someone raises both hands? What is someone's hand isn't seen? What if someone miscounts how many people are in one area? Is that guy between groups with Warren or Biden? . . . Plus people come and go. This was the first year that both first counts and second counts were recorded - which creates a mess. For example, on the first count Biden could get 34 votes, and three of those people leave before the second vote - this throws of the second vote tally and appears as "irregularities" - where did those votes go? People leaving? Miscounting? Intentionally not recording? . . . As well, people have been caught shifting to other camps. Some people in Biden's group may see that Klobuchar is barely below the 15% viability group and move over to her group to boost her numbers. This can be difficult to keep track of in a chaotic environment between first and second votes. This isn't "interference" - it is an archaic system of voting that is inherently difficult to tally and record. 

A much better system would be to have ranked choice voting. They can keep the community dialog atmosphere by having all groups get together in one precinct and a representative gets to make their case for their candidate and then they have a formal ranked choice voting - without any of the nonsense of counting raised hands, flipping coins, people moving around, people leaving etc., . It's very unlikely that anyone will change their first choice, yet the dialog can persuade people to change their second or third choices. 

[Bno]

I'm probably going to get banned for speaking out about this even though I'm trying to promote more consciousness about our political system. I do my personal spiritual work in addition to staying properly informed. I'm generally a very reserved person until I see someone being mislead, in which case I will speak up and try to educate. I'm confused about why @Hatfort post got locked? What did we say that was a conspiracy theory?

The DNC rigged the elections in 2016 is a fact concluded in court

Pete Buttigieg having ties with the CIA is a fact, to what extent is he an asset is up to debate but simply mentioning his strong ties is not a conspiracy theory.

The app created by the company Shadow Inc. which is filled with former Clinton staffers and received $47k from the Buttigieg campaign is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The wife of the CEO of this company also works in Buttigieg's campaign.

The establishment not liking Bernie Sanders is obvious.

Yet when it comes to believing an actual conspiracy theory (Russiagate), one that lacks legitimate evidence and has a myriad of evidence that helps to disprove it is ok to believe.

Is this really what we're going to come down to? Biased selectivity on what we call conspiracy theory and what we don't just because it suits a preconceived narrative that we want so bad to be true despite lefty journalists providing meticulous work disproving it? Then when there's a myriad of evidence supporting one notion, the current Iowa election rigging, we're not allowed to talk about it.

How are we going to achieve higher levels of consciousness if we're so busy hyper focusing on personal work that we ignore what's happening in the systems that dictate how we live our lives? We can't be politically conscious if we don't properly inform ourselves.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Bno

[Hatfort]

11 hours ago, Bno said:

I'm probably going to get banned for speaking out about this even though I'm trying to promote more consciousness about our political system. I do my personal spiritual work in addition to staying properly informed. I'm generally a very reserved person until I see someone being mislead, in which case I will speak up and try to educate. I'm confused about why @Hatfort post got locked? What did we say that was a conspiracy theory?

I think we are discussing and analyzing events with what we are given. I'll accept a ban if I have to, his cave, his rules.

I did drop the ball giving the win to Bernie with no official results yet, saying Bernie crushed Biden in the very title, but that was intentional. I also said that they would play with the numbers, after about 24 hours, a 62% result is released with Buttigieg as a virtual winner, putting him more in the race. I'm going again, with the 100% result, Bernie will be the winner, If not, I'll leave the forum myself with an apology, that's my commitment and I'm a man of word. I'll also accept a ban if moderators consider it best, whatever results we get in the end and whatever reasons they have, but I spoke my mind and I think that's worth it.

The delay in the 100% has not been well justified, some vague explanations about problems with the app don't make it for me.

My analysis right now, in case I can't do it later. Biden has fallen, I don't think anybody doubts that, now or even on Monday night. Buttigieg gets up, he's getting a great result and that was unexpected, but I don't think he has a good overal chance. Bernie is doing better with all the minorities and even whites. Warren is not doing well enough. Their only chance against Bernie is to unite, but the question is with whom. Biden was the man for that, as he can appeal to senior moderates, but he crashed in the first lap. Bloomberg? An election with two millionaires? Come on!

One more unrelated thing. I'm very dissapointed with Nancy Pelosi's behavior, she didn't put the Trump speech paper she tore up in the recycle bin. How dare she, what about the environment! Greta will be mad at her!

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Hatfort

[Cocolove]

conspiracy likely but who knows

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Cocolove said:

conspiracy likely but who knows

No it isn't

Watch your self-biases.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura How can we refute your claims with factual evidence without being called idealistic or attached? Can we have open-minded discussions about this? History and current evidence shows there are myriad of reasons to be concerned about rigging.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

@Bno Turn inward in silence and observe your own biases and attachments.

There is no need to have a discussion with me.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura Ok, and if I already do that and nonbiasly see that you're believing proven misinformation and then spreading it to your platform of thousands of people who trust you, would it be conscious of me to sit in silence?

Edited February 5, 2020 by Bno

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

 

[Forestluv]

@Bno You clearly have good intentions of wanting to help others and improve society. And, I'm not saying you are right or wrong. . . There is another way of seeing things, by letting go of content and looking at the structure of how we interact with reality and interpret content.

Like you, I have a desire to transmit information and genuinely want to help people. For a long time, I was immersed in content. For me, it was science. I wanted to transmit scientific facts and help irrational people think rationally. I spent a lot of time trying to help "woo woo" people with irrational thinking to start thinking rationally. I was so immersed in the content of science, that I couldn't see my mind structure and how my mind was interpreting through a filter. I was so immersed in a scientific narrative that I couldn't see any biases. I couldn't see what I was missing. This is really hard to do because of attachment/identification to a narrative and the genuine desire to help people through this narrative. Yet it is worth it, ime. 

[whoareyou]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Bno Turn inward in silence and observe your own biases and attachments.

There is no need to have a discussion with me.

The DNC rigged the elections in 2016 is a fact concluded in court. When you have nothing to say regarding the facts, you always respond with "watch your own biases". Like wtf?

 @Bno Keep spreading the truth and speaking your mind, as far as I have seen here, you are one of the few that has a balanced perspective when it comes to politics. It's unfortunate that a lot of Americans refuse to see election interference happening in their own country and the politicians use the Russia conspiracy as a distraction. It's mind boggling to me that Leo has so many blind spots when it comes to politics.

[Bno]

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

The DNC rigged the elections in 2016 is a fact concluded in court. When you have nothing to say regarding the facts, you always respond with "watch your own biases". Like wtf?

 @Bno Keep spreading the truth and speaking your mind, as far as I have seen here, you are one of the few that has a balanced perspective when it comes to politics. It's unfortunate that a lot of Americans refuse to see election interference happening in their own country and the politicians use the Russia conspiracy as a distraction. It's mind boggling to me that Leo has so many blind spots when it comes to politics.

Thank you. My guess is Leo has gotten too comfortable financially to care deeply enough about the issues and thinks he has it all figured out. He doesn't acknowledge that his spiral dynamics stage for understanding spirituality can be at a different stage from his spiral dynamics stage for politics. What we say to him flies over his head, no matter how many good points or pieces of unbiased evidence we present to him. In his eyes, we're the biased ones, not him.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Juan Cruz Giusto said:

 

This is gross projection.

Nothing objective or factual about this commentary. It's pure speculation.

[Cocolove]

Do any of us actually have a deep understanding of what going on in Iowa? And I do mean with regards to content. I don't know if it was rigged or corrupt in any way or not.

[tenta]

 

[Inliytened1]

@tenta that kid doesn't even look smart enough to flip a coin let alone make a magic trick of it lol....they should have picked someone who knew how to flip a coin, yeah..but to say with certainty that it was cheating...nah...the guy says "even if it was rigged by accident"  lol....how do you rig by accident...he goes back to past stuff and accuses without enough evidence...he even states that he is calling em guilty  just based on what happened in 2016.   

 

[tenta]

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@tenta that kid doesn't even look smart enough to flip a coin let alone make a magic trick of it lol....they should have picked someone who knew how to flip a coin, yeah..but to say with certainty that it was cheating...nah...the guy says "even if it was rigged by accident"  lol....how do you rig by accident...he goes back to past stuff and accuses without enough evidence...he even states that he is calling em guilty  just based on what happened in 2016.   

 

It could be an invalid result while it's not rigged.

He isn't accusing with no evidence, what's the chance that the Iowa app is funded by Pete and Hillary's team building it while not even running basic tests?

Look at 15:49 and also remember that Bernie got the most votes while Pete was declared the winner.