Iowa Caucus App

[Hatfort]

Cenk Uygur analysis about Iowa events:

Pete spoke too much, he literally said he was victorious before having the official results. if he is not, his image will be damaged. Bernie has been more cautious, may be the experience. People and even journalists can speak more loosely, candidates should not. If he is indeed the winner, it's true this mess goes against him, it goes against anyone who has won. If he is not, he screwed himself, at least a bit.

The responsibles in Iowa are doing a horrible job, come on, more than two days to count? Releasing partial results that could change with the complete ones with such a big margin between them? What joke is this? What are they counting? It is good Bernie's team is keeping records too, because these guys can't be trusted, as far as we have seen. Of course Bernie's count won't serve, for obvious reasons, but they are another metric to compare, so the others are more tied to be clean, which is important. I think the final results will be legit, they kept the paper trails too. But so many days to release the results do not help to build trust.

All this delay and the partial selected data releases stink really bad to me. From the very begining I thought Bernie had won and that they were deliberatelly taking his momentum from him. I put my balls on it, well, my continuity in the forum, by my choice. I made a post with the title we should have had on newspapers on tuesday, just to make the point, I knew there were not official results then, in fact, we don't have them yet. Whatever, I won't say we'll know soon, because who knows when these incompetents will finish their job.

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Bno said:

 The court ruled that as a private entity, the DNC can choose whoever they want as their nominee.

But not through a fraudulent vote counting system.

There are laws against gross fraud like that.

You can't just not count the votes of a black nominee because he's black, for example. That would never fly.

If the DNC staged a fake app error in order to delay publishing the real results, that too would fall under fraud.

It's clear that the app did not work as intended. Precinct captains had difficulty getting the app to download and work properly.

[Emerald]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I agree politicians shouldn't have conflicts of interest.

But even to say that Pete is financially invested is a stretch. Buying services from a technology company is not to be invested in it. Companies routinely provide services to various clients.

I'm pretty sure deliberately creating an vote counting system which misreports votes in favor of one candidate would be illegal. If a campaign was caught doing that it would be a massive scandal, there would be legal charges, and the entire election would be nullified.

There is no evidence for any of that.

To suggest Pete paid $50,000 to buy the election via a corrupt app is absurd. You better have solid evidence when making such a claim instead of saying "Err on the side of caution." You are erring on the side of slander.

I’m not saying he could be buying the entire election with this app. Just the momentum that the winning candidate gets from being the winner of the Iowa Caucus... and in Pete’s case, appearing to be the winner.

Biden’s campaign is weakening, and Pete is the second most popular establishment Democrat in the polls. So, he’s put all his campaign money into ads in the first states... especially Iowa. So, his plan already rides heavily on having strong numbers in Iowa especially. So, this certainly dovetails nicely with that plan.

So, what I’m saying is that Pete is benefiting from the app malfunctioning in the sense that they are releasing the results gradually (in the districts that Pete was stronger in), and releasing the results from areas with more delegates that Bernie was stronger in later... which still hasn’t happened.

And this doesn’t even require them to misreport the votes. It could just be that they expected that the app crashes and planned to partially report the results in favor of Pete.

This enables him to have more momentum going forward, even if Bernie ends up being front runner in Iowa. People have short attention spans. So the delay and premature victory that Pete has claimed, will give Pete more momentum and not Bernie.

Also, it isn’t slander because I’m saying this is a possibility we need to be prepared for because motive and history of corruption are both there. I’m not saying that this is true. I’m saying there is a strong possibility that it could be.
 

What I am saying is that corruption is just as likely a possibility as pure malfunction. And we should be on high alert for it and not just assume establishment Democrats are all working in good faith.
 

To assume that there is no foul play is a huge speculation with major consequences if we don’t calculate that possibility in.

If we speculate that there could be foul play, we will be vigilant and prepared and will deter many attempts at corruption because the potential that the public will catch on is too risky.
 

But if we speculate that there’s no foul play, it means we’re not going to be alert or prepared for any that comes our way. And there will be politicians that take advantage of that.

Also, a company that creates an election app should have ZERO financial ties to any politicians in any party. That should be basic. Financial ties are financial ties. And some people’s price for corruption is lower. You can’t say $40k isn’t election tampering money. There are companies that would do worse things for less money.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Emerald

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Pete is the second most popular establishment Democrat in the polls. So, he’s put all his campaign money into ads in the first states... especially Iowa. So, his plan already rides heavily on having strong numbers in Iowa especially. So, this certainly dovetails nicely with that plan.

It also dovetails nicely that he won Iowa precisely because he sunk so much money into campaigning there. Coupled with the fact that Biden barely met the 15% threshold so Biden's voters were forced to choose Pete.

If Biden under-performed it makes sense that Pete over-performed. Biden voters are not going to Bernie by and large.

You are interpreting things in accordance with your biases. There are far less nefarious explanations of what happened.

Quote

So, what I’m saying is that Pete is benefiting from the app malfunctioning in the sense that they are releasing the results gradually (in the districts that Pete was stronger in), and releasing the results from areas with more delegates that Bernie was stronger in.

If Pete actually had a victory, then Pete is hurting from the app malfunction the most because he badly needed a clear victory because he's not going to win New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina most likely. Pete's only real chance of beating Bernie was to get a clear victory in Iowa. Bernie didn't need a clear victory as badly as Pete because Bernie should get a clear victory in New Hampshire and elsewhere. And Bernie has endless support and donations.

If you were a Pete supporter, you would be pissed. Assuming Pete won. Which looks likely right now.

If you sunk all of your money into one election, as Pete did, you need a clear victory there. So Pete is hurt the most by the situation as long as he didn't do anything fraudulent to cause it. I'm willing to give Pete the benefit of the doubt that he is not a totally corrupt fraud. If it turns out he is, well, he should go to jail for election rigging. But bring solid proof. That's a serious criminal charge. That's like calling someone a child molester. You better have proof. You don't call people child molesters just to be on the safe side. That's a highly damaging accusation.

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Also, I’m saying this is a possibility we need to be prepared for because motive and history of corruption are both there. I’m not saying that this is true. I’m saying there is a strong possibility that it could be.
 

If we speculate that there could be foul play, we will be vigilant and prepared and will deter many attempts at corruption because the potential that the public will catch on is too risky.
 

But if we speculate that there’s no foul play, it means we’re not going to be alert or prepared for any that comes our way. And there will be politicians that take advantage of that.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with speculation...i don't think anyone here is close minded to the possibility of corruption.  So i agree its important to contemplate either possibility.  It simply seemed the tone of the thread was leaning towards corruption being an absolute in this case and that just can't be stated at this time.  So jumping to conclusions would be premature.

 

[Bno]

@Leo Gura They didn't plan on the results getting delayed. They're only doing that now because they thought they could get away with rigging the results like they did in 2016. The reason for the delay is likely because the Bernie camp with their precinct captains and their app found irregularities and discrepancies with the Iowa app. Without staging the victory for Pete, they likely wanted to save themselves from embarrassment as well as handing the victory and moment over to the candidate that will change the status quo, Bernie Sanders. 

There were people on the ground witnessing all this.

And yes, the DNC did commit voter fraud in 2016 by hiding and eliminating people's ballots in 2016. And there's also evidence of this happening in 2018 in the Florida primary and election between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It also dovetails nicely that he won Iowa precisely because he sunk so much money into campaigning there. Coupled with the fact that Biden barely met the 15% threshold so Biden's voters were forced to choose Pete.

If Biden under-performed it makes sense that Pete over-performed. Biden voters are not going to Bernie by and large.

You are interpreting things in accordance with your biases.

If Pete actually had a victory, then Pete is hurting from the app malfunctioning because he badly needed a clear victory because he's not going to win New Hampshire or Nevada most likely. Pete only real chance of beating Bernie was to get a clear victory.

If you were a Pete supporter, you would be pissed. Assuming Pete won. Which looks likely right now.

Again, that is also a possibility. But it isn’t the dangerous possibility. So we don’t need to be aware of it as much. 

The focus toward the potential for corruption is practical, as it keeps the people who will benefit from a Bernie Sanders presidency (which is everyone but establishment folks and billionaires) from being screwed over. 

Bernie’s campaign pushes up against power. And so the potential for corruption against his campaign should be on everyone’s radar and not brushed off as some empty conspiracy theory. The road ahead will be tough and will be beset with many obstacles.

We watch for corruption and suspect the worst because doing otherwise is to be underprepared and to fail at being vigilant.

By suspecting corruption, the worst thing we can be is incorrect. By negating the potential for corruption, we really could lose an opportunity to revolutionize the entire political system. 

So, that’s why it’s important to consider the possibility that the fuckery in Iowa is a calculated move. It’s important to err on the side of caution because it’s the wiser choice to be over-suspicious instead of under-suspicious (aka gullible).

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Emerald

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 We're saying it's highly likely and we're also going against the notion of calling it a "conspiracy theory" and locking people's discussions about these valid concerns. 

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Serotoninluv My concern is towards the establishment which have been proven endlessly to be working against the interest of working people and who've been shown historically to rig elections in their favor.

In that case, I would push toward eliminating caucus circuses. The shenanigans and inconsistencies are an inherent part of caucuses. Everything I've read and seen is completely expected and has been happening in caucuses for decades.  It is a fertile environment for irregularities. Ranked choice voting is much superior. 

It's like allowing college students to take an un-proctored exam with three cases of beer in the room. And then being shocked and appalled that some students cheated and a case of beer is missing. That's exactly what's expected in that environment.  

 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv With this issue I agree with you. It would solve so many problems. Candidates would also focus more towards propping each other up rather than attacking and bringing each other down.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Inliytened1 We're saying it's highly likely 

Just be wary not to blur the line between thinking its possible and thinking its actual without substantial evidence.

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There is nothing wrong with speculation...i don't think anyone here is close minded to the possibility of corruption.  So i agree its important to contemplate either possibility.  It simply seemed the tone of the thread was leaning towards corruption being an absolute in this case and that just can't be stated at this time.  So jumping to conclusions would be premature.

 

It seems that that’s been the argument. People saying that even to speculate about corruption is foolish.

I put out a bunch of facts about the situation with the Iowa caucus situation. And I say, “Do whatever you want with this information.”

Then I get people arguing back at me as though I am arguing that there is DEFINITELY corruption going on. 

But I just presented the facts of the situation. And then everyone connected the dots, thought corruption in their own minds, and then immediately started arguing against their own conclusions about corruption to me as though I was the one who said it in the first place. And that I’m spinning some unreasonable “grab your tinfoil hats” conspiracy theory.

All I’m saying is to err on the side of caution, be vigilant, and be prepared for the worse case scenario.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Bno said:

They didn't plan on the results getting delayed. They're only doing that now because they thought they could get away with rigging the results

So they didn't plan it, yet somehow, magically, the app failed to load for hundreds of precinct captains when it came time to report results?

They thought they could just not report results for 2 days by blaming a fully functioning app? And get away with it? As if nobody would come forward and report that the app functioned perfectly?

Your conspiracy theory is more of a joke than flatearth.

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 

But I just presented the facts of the situation. And then everyone connected the dots, thought corruption in their own minds, and then immediately started arguing against their own conclusions 

 

 

 

Really?! So now you are able to read minds too? ❤?

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Really?! So now you are able to read minds too? ❤?

No. They responded to me by saying something to the effect of “It’s not corruption” or “Don’t entertain conspiracy theories.”

But I didn’t say it was corruption or provide theories of any kind in my original post. I just have a handful of facts and said “Do with this what you like.”

Do you see what I mean about connecting the dots, thinking of conspiracy, and then arguing against me as though I put the suggestion out there?

[Emerald]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Biden voters are not going to Bernie by and large.

Actually, as strange as this may sound, I just saw a poll on this. And a plurality of Biden’s supporters have Bernie as their number two choice.

 

[Bno]

@Leo Gura

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

So they didn't plan it, yet somehow, magically, the app failed to load for hundreds of precinct captains when it came time to report results?

They thought they could just not report results for 2 days by blaming a fully functioning app? And get away with it? As if nobody would come forward and report that the app functioned perfectly?

Your conspiracy theory is more of a joke than flatearth.

Lol, this is not a joke like the Russigate conspiracy you believe.

I'm speculating based on national and international history that they were trying to rig the primaries again, only this time using the app. And when the results from the app weren't matching the results presented in the Bernie camp app, that's when people started reporting there being "inconsistencies" and that there was "a bug." 

More evidence emerging: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/02/04/pro-israel-buttigieg-seth-klarman-iowas-voting-app/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

And more coming in:

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Bno]

 

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Actually, as strange as this may sound, I just saw a poll on this. And a plurality of Biden’s supporters have Bernie as their number two choice.

 

Yup, there's actually an overwhelming amount of polls reported since a year ago that show Bernie as Biden supporters' second choice. 

[Emerald]

Here’s a good video on the topic that really explains why it’s perfectly rational to be suspicious of intent to corrupt the process.

 

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

 

Do you see what I mean about connecting the dots, thinking of conspiracy, and then arguing against me as though I put the suggestion out there?

Well you kinda did put it out there - just indirectly.  If there weren't doubts in your mind you probably wouldn't have posted it at all.  It was the concern for the fact that the Buttigieg camp had a vested interest in the company that put out the app.  So that and other things stimulated your speculation and hence your post.  Those are valid concerns.  But i digress because to your point you did mention that it was just speculation at this juncture and that it could indeed be coincidental..   And as i said i agree it is wise to contemplate all possibilities and be vigilant. 

Whether it is a conspiracy theory though, is valid here as it is relative - Because it is a theory that a certain group of people are conspiring and masterminding an intricate plan to rig voting, when its more probable that in this case it was just a bug.

Since there is no real evidence yet - saying it was a bug can be considered more probable here than a a group of people masterminding a plan for political motivation...   Note - it can be considered more probable at this time.  Its relative.  Therefore to call it a conspiracy theory is valid.