Emerald

Update: The results are still at 97% with Pete ahead in delegates by a razor thin margin of 0.1%. The satellite caucuses that Bernie did best in have still not been reported. Tom Perez, chair of the DNC is now calling for an “Immediate” recanvass of the votes from scratch... “immediately” almost certainly meaning before the remainder of the votes are counted. Again. Do with this new information what you will.

Devils in the government will keep getting away with devilry as long as fools continue giving them the benefit of the doubt. When there is motive, stakes, conflicts of interest, inconsistencies, and a history of corruption, it is pure devilry to convince people that their lack of trust in the establishment is unfounded. And it’s specifically your type of devilry that keeps truth from coming to light.

I disagree with the idea that a bug would be so significantly more reasonable to postulate about as the cause of what is happening in Iowa, in a political system that’s based mostly off of politicians doing the bidding of major corporations and industries for money. And that’s especially true when an anti-establishment candidate is running who may upset the continuation of that corruption. But you seem to think it’s like a 1000 to 1 chance that some corruption is happening. If I were to guess, I’d put the odds at 70/30 in favor of your bug theory. But because the chances for corruption are still so significant, given the financial ties and the inconsistency in numbers and the establishment’s extensive history of corruption, you can’t just rule out the possibility of corruption as though it’s somehow ludicrous to suspect. Government corruption happens every single day on an ongoing basis. Also, I can’t stress enough how important it is for everyday people to practice healthy skepticism toward the political institution. It helps keep them more honest, so that they’re less likely to try something funny. Don’t just give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s better to be over-suspicious and wrong than it is to be under-suspicious and get fucked over. The worst case scenario with the first scenario is that you say, “Nanana bo boo. Told ya’ so.” to me. And I can live with that minor ego blow. The worst case scenario with the second scenario is that we fail to push back on corruption and many people continue to get messed over. And we miss the opportunity to get someone in office who will work to turn the tables.

Yes you did Leo. You’ve been arguing up and down that it’s just a bug to everyone on this thread with everyone as though it’s a clear Occam’s Razor. And you’ve been insisting that anyone who as much as suspects foul play is foolish, despite the fact that any sane person would be suspicious of what’s happening in Iowa... especially given the details that I shared in my original post and the fact that our political system is already riddled with corruption. Also, do you seriously expect that the truth about political corruption will magically reveal itself with “calm and patience” if no one at the grassroots level is suspicious about it? If so, that’s a foolish expectation... and you’re smart enough to know that. The truth only comes out if enough people are pushing for it. And that process of getting the truth to come to light is anything but calm. Don’t expect corrupt institutions to reveal their corruption to you on a silver platter. And I haven’t made one single accusation. I’ve only told you what I’m suspicious of and the facts that make me suspicious. Also, this is NOT an ideology.... anymore than it’s an ideology to state that ‘perhaps foxes shouldn’t be allowed in the chicken coop.’

I haven’t watched the video but I can already tell you that WWIII is not around the corner. America only does war with much smaller countries that pose very little threat to us as a nation, so that it can usurp the power structures of those countries for financial gain and create a path from the military industrial complex directly into the giant pot of tax dollars collected from tax payers. So, America is largely safe from the full depth and breadth of the horrors of war due to extreme imperialism and an allyship with almost all other first-world nations. Also, I see no signs of the dissolution of the US.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

Yeah. With the DNC’s track record, it’s just as much speculation to assume they are telling the truth as it is to assume they’re lying. It seems that everyone else on the thread is biased in assuming that “there is not corruption happening” is the default position. They don’t realize that they themselves are speculating just as much.

Those who forget or ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Number one, your priority isn’t about truth right now or you wouldn’t even be weighing in your opinion on politics in the first place... because politics is about survival. And you certainly wouldn’t be arguing with me... which is also an attempt at survival because deep down you know your opinion (if widely adopted) would lead to a gullible populace and even more government corruption. And you don’t want to be wrong. And you can’t just jump to the absolute paradigm to cover up when you’re wrong within a given relative paradigm... like politics or survival. Absolute Truth doesn’t trump survival in a situation that concerns survival. If you were starving and someone offered you food, would you also say the same thing? I don’t think so. You would prioritize food because it’s wise if you want to survive. Number two, I am not speculating wildly. I am providing a bunch of facts about the situation that can be interpreted in a couple different ways, with corruption being one of them. Look back and you’ll see that that’s exactly how I wrote my original post without any theory or accusations at all. I said “Do with this information what you will.” It was you who connected the dots and concluded that it spelled out conspiracy and then argued against you own conclusion. And it’s monumentally foolish to pretend that corruption is a more far-fetched possibility than the alternative. We need to err on the side of caution and recognize that there is a long track record of corruption in politics and be ready for this type of fuckery. Also, my broader point is to say that politicians shouldn’t be financially invested in a company whose app reports the election results. Not only does it open elections up to potential corruption. It also looks very suspicious even if there is no corruption. So, an app with strong financial ties to Mayor Pete’s campaign that malfunctions and the malfunction results is reported as a victory for Mayor Pete, will make any reasonable person suspect foul play. And those that insist that that’s some kind of stretch or fairy tale are speculating WILDLY. So you idea that it’s an error is just as much speculation as claiming it’s corruption.

This video talks about potential reasons why this slow release of results (beginning with the districts that Mayor Pete did best in) would be beneficial to those seeking to undermine Bernie’s campaign. If Bernie is the front-runner, it takes away the momentum he’d get from an Iowa win because Pete is getting all the media attention as the “winner”.

Don’t be naive Leo. It’s far wiser to err on the side of caution in this case and prepare for the worse case scenario. Your assumption that there is no corruption happening, when that’s quite probable and there’s a long track record of corruption in the DNC, enables devilry. What happens if everyone thinks like you do Leo? Devils run away with the election while fools give them the benefit of the doubt. The fact of the matter is that the creator of the Shadow app’s husband is Mayor Pete’s senior strategist. And he paid over $42k to that company... supposedly for other services. Also Bernie’s numbers, as he was tracking the numbers too for consistency purposes, have shown so far that he has a strong lead over Pete. So, I implore you to consider how unwise it is for you to just give those that stand to lose so much from a Sanders sweeping victory the benefit of the doubt.

I apologize for the misinformation on the Mayor Pete giving money DIRECTLY to the Shadow company for that app. That said, Pete Buttigieg's campaign STILL has financial ties to the company. How do you know they actually paid for another service and it wasn't just a way to funnel money to the company? The fact of the matter is that a company who creates such an app for elections should have ZERO financial ties to ANY political candidate. Otherwise, there is the potential for corruption and a conflict of interest. Mind you, it could all be coincidental. That said, to assume that it's all coincidental is rather foolish considering the stakes that a Bernie Sanders presidency presents to the establishment and their already very well-known corruption. I think it's best to err on the side of caution, and consider that this could indeed be a politically calculated move to keep the status quo in place. So, it's not like I'm saying the moon landing didn't happen. I'm saying that it's very possible that the DNC is trying to keep the person out of office who will most disturb their cash cows. Don't pretend like this isn't a valid concern. If you're looking for the establishment to confirm their own corruption to the public, that just naive at best.

The Animus possesses the identity when a woman either has not developed their masculine side or resists against masculinity (which can come from negative experiences with men or simply being instilled with exaggerated beliefs about gender). With an integrated masculine side a woman can set boundaries, have emotional mastery, communicate clearly her perspective, and has developed her sense of self-preservation and independence. So, she has access to all the positive qualities of the masculine principle. A woman with a disintegrated masculine side will often feel over-whelmed, unsure of herself, and unsafe... especially when interacting with men who feel like a threat because of the disintegration. This is why the Animus comes in to possess. It's a protector but it does so in unhealthy ways in its disintegrated form. So, the disintegrated Animus is over-protective, harsh, and disempowering. It sees the feminine as weak and seeks to dominate the personality to avoid being seen as weak. So, there is often a yo-yo effect with women who have disintegrated Animus... they go from very vulnerable and vague in the non-possessed form or they go on heavy defense in the possessive form of the Animus. And women who have disintegrated or underdeveloped Animus will attract and be attracted to men who have a disintegrated or underdeveloped Anima. And they attract each other like the north and south poles of a magnet.

No, there are exceptions and there are never any black and whites because masculinity and femininity are poles on a single spectrum... and in that sense there is no true distinction. So, what I shared is a very general rule. It will fit most people... but a significant number of people will diverge from that, which is normal. Someone who is more masculine than feminine in how their energetic signature crosses over the sexual instinct will generally have an upward moving relationship to their sexuality... regardless of gender or identification. And vice versa. And as with the Yin and Yang symbol, everything always contains both. So, no one's sex drive is only masculine or only feminine. So, even if you take someone with the most masculine sexual baseline, there will still be some of their energy flowing downward and not upward. And again... vice versa. So, there are tons of nuances to where everyone's sexual energy flows in unique ways... which is why I call it an energetic signature. But a general rule of thumb is that men's sexual energy tends to flow upward and women's sexual energy tends to flow downward. And in Tantric practices two partners can cycle this energy... The man penetrating the woman upward through the sexual center and the woman penetrating the man downward through the mind.

That's actually not true. I've never been in a relationship where the guy didn't love me back or where there was some lack of emotional reciprocity. But I can tell you why it seems that way. Most men don't have an integrated Feminine side, and because of this they end up incapable of opening their hearts. They fear vulnerability too much. And the obsessive sex drive is a direct result of this Feminine disintegration... because they crave the love of a woman (the woman inside themselves) so much. But this translates in the external to being hyper obsessed with women and their sexuality as they are projecting the disintegrated Anima that they both worship and revile. But energetically speaking, men and women work differently in terms of how the libidinal energy flows. Women's flows from the top down and men's from the bottom up. So, women's sexual energy begins in the mind, travels to the heart, and then eventually reaches the sexual center. Men's energy starts in the sexual center, travels to the heart, and eventually reaches the mind. Now, the challenge here for men is that the sexual center has the most gravity to it. So, it takes a well-developed man to transmute baser sexual impulses to love and devotion. So, if a guy is immature or if he has beliefs that tell him that he should never love a woman or be vulnerable, then the energy will just stagnate in the sexual center... and his life will be noting more than a lonely bender of chasing tail. So, if you want to attract a man who is both capable of loving and prefers pair-bonding, you must first deal with your own internal barriers and Animus possession. When you do this, you will naturally attract and be attracted to more mature men. You must be the one to attract the one... even though there is no "one".

That's not true. The degree to which men and women get along is the degree to which they are able to have integration within themselves relative to their Feminine and Masculine sides. A man who represses his femininity, will both be obsessed with and hate women. A woman who represses her masculinity, will feel both feel dependent upon and victimized by men. So, it's really only disintegration and lack of understanding that causes the issues between the sexes. That said, society does have a huge issue with this... which is really a symptom of our current stage in human evolution and the limitations that are still there.