Iowa Caucus App

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

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.

 

This video is garbage.

96% of results are now in. Looks like it was a very tight race but Pete won. Deal with it. You owe Pete an apology. Pete's estimates were most accurate.

This is the difference between being oriented towards truth vs survival.

[martin_malin]

They gave Deval Patrick 494 votes before correcting their mistake after seeing the County supervisor had posted different numbers on Twitter. What a shit show lol.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura You keep disingenuously ignoring all the on the ground evidence I presented.

Listen to how childish and dogmatic you sound calling well analyzed videos "garbage" and coming at us with petty dismissals like "your conspiracy is a joke like flat earthers." Is this the kind of consciousness you want to promote? Look at how many people are noticing your ego when it comes to politics.

It's also apparent you don't understand how this process works since you're letting yourself be deceived by MSM trickeries. It's actually Bernie who is winning by popular vote. The delegates don't matter until the convention. Those percentages you see projected on Google and other MSM outlets are the delegates. They're presenting the delegates to deceive people like they presented superdelegates front and center in 2016.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Emerald]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This video is garbage.

96% of results are now in. Looks like it was a very tight race but Pete won. Deal with it. You owe Pete an apology.

This is the difference between being oriented towards truth vs survival.

95% so we don’t actually know yet. Also, I personally trust Bernie’s numbers more anyway, even though they obviously can’t hold up for the results.

Bernie has a much better record of integrity compared to any other politician in the establishment and (of course) the establishment as an institution. So, I can’t really help but have more trust in his reporting even though he has a conflict of interest too.

The DNC has simply done too much shadiness, selling out, and nepotism to have any faith in their integrity.

So I will still be incredibly suspicious at the whole process. And that’s a valid suspicion. And you should be suspicious too.

Also, I’ll apologize to Mayor Pete as soon as he apologizes to me and everyone else for taking money from major industries including Big Pharma to do their bidding in office. 

Edit: Also, if you were really concerned with truth over survival you would recognize that assuming there’s corruption and assuming there’s not corruption are both based in speculation completely ungrounded in first-hand experience.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Emerald

[Inliytened1]

 

2 hours ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura

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:

 

How is this evidence?  The democratic party chairman stated he was having cybersecurity looking into the failed app but that no details were yet available.  So this is just more conspiracy theory.

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 You didn't look at the thread apparently.

 

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, Bno said:

@Inliytened1 You didn't look at the thread apparently.

 

I read it but it was nothing new.  It was already stated here in this thread that there were possible financial ties between the company that made the app and Buttigieg's campaign.  It doesn't prove anything.   Its one thing to say that and its another to say Seth set it all up and conspired with Shadow to purposely rig the app.   You said more evidence was emerging but that would take some real time if there is even going to be an investigation.  For something like this i don't think there is gonna be.  It doesn't seem like it would even warrant one once they verify the voting results are valid - as they normally do. 

[Emerald]

57 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

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.

It’s a conspiracy theory in the sense that it’s a hypothesis about a conspiracy. but that doesn’t make that hypothesis true or false.

The term conspiracy theory is actually neutral. It just has a negative connotation because we relate the word to various silly hoaxes not grounded in any likelihood at all.

But Conspiracies do happen and often. And so you can’t treat a conspiracy theory about run-of-the-mill corruption in politics and a conspiracy theory about unicorns taking over the planet equally.

And I absolutely am suspicious of what’s going on with the Iowa Caucus. And if a person has no shred of suspicion or thinks that conspiracy wouldn’t happen, then I submit to you that that’s foolishness. You should be wary of motive, conflicts of interest, and historical precedence, which corruption lines up with.

The fact of the matter is that we don’t know. So, there is a hypothesis that it’s a simple bug in the system. And there’s a hypothesis that it’s happening because of deliberate attempts to mess with the election.

Both are 100% possible as hypotheses. So no one truly knows. So, it’s foolish to look at one of those potentials and scoff at it like I’m saying we have to wear tin foil hats to keep aliens from harvesting our brainwaves.

So, it’s important to show healthy skepticism in the intentions of the political institution and see that skepticism as valid. Otherwise politicians will take advantage of a populace that always gives the benefit of the doubt to the establishment y to avoid looking conspiratorial in the fashion of a flat earther.

 

[Emerald]

Bernie has only 3 fewer delegates than Pete now, which is 0.1% different at 97% reporting. Getting close to the wire.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

You Bernie supporters are overlooking a very simple fact: election irregularities happen often in American politics. This is nothing new. Voting is a messy process. If you give them time, they will go back and double-check everything. But you're so impatient that you don't want to give them time. You automatically assume something nefarious and scream for instant results like children.

Sure, you might wish everything worked flawlessly, but that's not how it's ever been. We live in reality. Iowa actually was more transparent than ever this year. And it's their effort to improve the system which ironically screwed it up.

As if you've never tried to improve something in your life and it ended up coming out worse. People with honest intentions screw things up all the time.

This whole incident is a textbook example of self-bias. And you still don't understand how deep the problem of self-bias goes. You are acting out your stage Green ideology, like unconscious monkeys. And then you wonder why politics is so dirty. You are making it dirty by flinging shit around. If you want a conscious society, first, start acting consciously.

What you're doing here is not conscious politics. It's business as usual with a progressive ideology.

This is a good example of what happens when Green goes too far in its desperation to defeat Orange and Blue.

[Hatfort]

Wow, I'm reading that with the 97% Buttigieg is winning by three delegates. The difference is so narrow that I'm going to wait until the 100% to make a final analysis and I intend to keep my word. 

[whoareyou]

@Leo Gura You believe in Russiagate conspiracy, yet you are going to tell somebody who is suspicious of foul play going on (based on the evidence from the past) that it's a silly conspiracy such as being a flat earther? Your naiveness, bias, and ignorance when it comes to politics is becoming more and more evident everyday.

I simply can't wrap my head around a guy who promotes consciousness, is so unconscious of his own blind spots/ignorance.

You fall for MSM trickery, like a child does for a candy.

Btw, if you do enough research, you will realize that a lot of so called "conspiracy" theories in history ended up being true, and not only that - the American government has a very large track record of screwing over it's citizens. 

You always express your disdain for Trump, yet you don't realize that if DNC did not screw over Bernie in 2016, there is a good chance we would have him as president now. 

Instead of believing hoaxes like Russiagate, you should be more concerned about fixing the corruption on the inside. No amount of foreign interference can compare to the interference that is going on inside. Contemplate this, and maybe you will have a new political awakening. Ta-da!

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 Nothing new? The Twitter thread by Nikola? Idt you understood what I meant by "thread."

[Bno]

 

@Leo Gura You actually think the DNC was trying to improve things to make the process more fair? Lmao! If they were blaming Russia for this you'd believe it without question.

This isn't even just about Bernie Sanders. It's well known that the Intelligence community from their own mouths in interviews with the MSM that part of their work is to stop progressives and anti-establishment candidates. And it's really reflected in the way the DNC unfairly treated not just Bernie, but Mike Gravel, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianna Williamson, and Andrew Yang. But when it comes to a member of the elite who donates loads of money for them (Bloomberg), they change the rules to help them. Look at what they did to Tim Canova in 2018 and what Nancy Pelosi does in California.

I called you out on your blindspots before and told you people are noticing. More people are noticing. Time to let go of your ego and admit you're wrong here. Set an example of growth instead of childishly holding on to a narrative of "Democrats good; Trump and GOP bad." You're damaging your own credibility.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Annoynymous]

@Leo Gura I think you are obviously over-looking your own self biases.

You tell us being acting like children for results, but the fact is that it's been two days since the Iowa caucus and still we couldn't get the full results. You are ignoring the fact that it will obviously cast doubt on voter's mind because it is obviously not normal.

Your justification of the current system sound like if i were in 1860 US and protested against slavery then you would say,  "why are you acting like children? Slavery has always been part of our system so be all right for it and let the authority double check if they think slavery if justified or not". This is not a way of looking and dealing with a problem. 

Just because something's been happening like a way do not mean it has to continue to happen in that way. If the system is flawed then definitely we have the right to take a closer look at that and hold for account.  

[Bno]

"It's just a bug! You're all conspiracy theorists!" Lol!

Heres a reddit post called Iowa Caucus: List of errors in official data analyzed by people who understand software and coding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/ezl7iw/iowa_caucus_list_of_errors_in_official_data/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You Bernie supporters are overlooking a very simple fact: election irregularities happen often in American politics. This is nothing new. Voting is a messy process. If you give them time, they will go back and double-check everything. But you're so impatient that you don't want to give them time. You automatically assume something nefarious and scream for instant results like children.

Sure, you might wish everything worked flawlessly, but that's not how it's ever been. We live in reality. Iowa actually was more transparent than ever this year. And it's their effort to improve the system which ironically screwed it up.

As if you've never tried to improve something in your life and it ended up coming out worse. People with honest intentions screw things up all the time.

This whole incident is a textbook example of self-bias. And you still don't understand how deep the problem of self-bias goes. You are acting out your stage Green ideology, like unconscious monkeys. And then you wonder why politics is so dirty. You are making it dirty by flinging shit around. If you want a conscious society, first, start acting consciously.

What you're doing here is not conscious politics. It's business as usual with a progressive ideology.

This is a good example of what happens when Green goes too far in its desperation to defeat Orange and Blue.

Again. I’m not assuming anything. You are.

You’re the one that’s arguing tooth and nail that there’s DEFINITELY no corruption happening and that it’s DEFINITELY just a bug. When if you were honest and as committed to truth as you claim to be in this interaction, you’d be like me and admit that you don’t actually know and see that both interpretations of the event are possible.

And that assuming that everyone is acting in good faith as the default assumption is just as big of an assumption as thinking that there’s DEFINITELY corruption. And your default assumption is that the institution is honest and is the beacon of final truths in the situation... which is completely divorced from historical precedents.

So, if you want to seek truth and not just survival in the argument, you must admit to yourself that you don’t actually know anything. 

What I’m saying is that there’s enough going on here that’s gone wrong to warrant suspicion, especially given the facts that I mentioned in the original post. 

And my argument is that we should default to suspicion in these cases to avoid being gullible and allowing potentially corrupt things to happen by virtue of ASSUMING the institution and the players in it are following the rules. It’s better to err in the direction that has no consequences if you’re wrong.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Emerald

[Inliytened1]

@Bno seems like you have your panties in a wad over your own ego being bruised dude.  You are sooo anti-conspiracy when it comes to Russiagate stating you want solid proof and a full investigation -on and on and on - yet you will just jump off and get on the bandwagon of a conspiracy theory here over something that just happened?? LOL. 

I think its you that has to come clean that maybe your just on here to stir up a bunch of conspiracy crap with no proof and proclaiming its the absolute truth - then on Trump who you clearly closet support (deep down) you completely do a 180 and play the opposite role.

No, i don't think Leo has to admit anything here.  I think the hypocrisy stinks from your direction.

 

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 What you fail to recognize is that Russiagte lacks evidence. On the other hand, primary and election rigging by the DNC has an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up. Your behavior of following Leo in ignoring the on the ground evidence and technical evidence analyzed by people who understand software programming shows your sycophantic bias to blindly agree with everything Leo says.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Bno said:

@Inliytened1 What you fail to recognize is that Russiagte lacks evidence. On the other hand, primary and election rigging by the DNC has an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up. Your behavior of following Leo in ignoring the on the ground evidence and technical evidence analyzed by people who understand software programming shows your sycophantic bias to agree with Leo.

I can see where it would appear that way but I'm saying just slow down before jumping to conclusions and that's all Leo said too.  No one said it isn't possible.   As far as Russiagate i was actually with you in terms of wanting evidence.  Thats why i never got involved in those threads.  I just observed and at the time i thought you were spot on in not having bias there.... I don't identify with any party.   I am odd in that i have no political identity  whatsoever.   I think that's a good thing because i don't have any bias.   I just am now seeing bias in you towards Trump because of how you are behaving on this thread - so it's making me rethink that you were seeing Russiagate through an unbiased lens.

And so far i cant make that same conclusion on evidence here that you are making.  I'm gonna take more time to look at it and we have to see how things play out.