Iowa Caucus App

[Bno]

@Johnny5 I highly recommend for you to read Ecodharma.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

How do you ignore the fact what DNC did in 2016?

I don't. That was a distinctly different issue.

Quote

You always tell people that about their blind spots and their "survival agenda", yet you don't see yours. Oh the irony.

What happened with this app is a huge concern, and to throw the "conspiracy theory" card is beyond ignorant and lazy.

Your projections aren't my problem.

The app is a concern. But you are the one throwing around conspiracy theories without any evidence other than your paranoid projections.

If evidence comes out of rigging, I'm happy to look at it. So far there is no such evidence and it is highly unlikely there will be. Not totally impossible, but definitely highly unlikely.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

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.

My priority is truth, not survival.

What you are doing is projecting and speculating wildly.

Pete had his people in every polling location. Bernie had his people in only 60% of polling locations. So it's reasonable that Pete's internal numbers are more accurate than Bernie's.

Either way it seems the election was very close for both of them. The difference is not material. They seem to both be winners here. The fact that you don't like Pete on ideological grounds is irrelevant. Pete clearly got a lot of votes and that makes sense because Biden and Klobuchar were not viable in many polling locations, so of course they went to Pete, not Bernie.

Bernie is still winning the popular vote, so I don't know what you guys are bitching about. Bernie had a great night and it's actually very good for Bernie that Pete basically killed Biden. Bernie should be able to defeat Pete going forward. Biden was the biggest threat to Bernie. If the DNC was rigging the election they would do it in favor of Biden as he was the frontrunner and has strong black support. The whole theory of rigging here makes on sense. You can't rig Pete's support. Moderates clearly support him.

By denying Pete his votes you are being anti-Democratic. Notice that. You have to admit that many moderates just don't like Bernie. That's not rigging, that a problem for your progressive ideology which you have to cope with. Just because you like Bernie doesn't mean he should win.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura You keep ignoring this

plus so many other pieces of evidence we keep presenting to you. 

Would you trust someone that's fooled you multiple times? The only reason they're showing Bernie's more accurate numbers now is because his campaign was more prepared with their own app and people on the ground filming the rigging.

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura You keep ignoring this

Yeah, that's called a bug.

You ever program a database server?

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My priority is truth, not survival.

What you are doing is projecting and speculating wildly.

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.

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Emerald

[Inliytened1]

Guys i read through the entire thread and i don't see any evidence here.  This is all speculation.  I'm in the IT field and i see bugs in systems developed from billion dollar companies all the time.   The statements provided as evidence are just other people stating their opinions.   To be completely unbiased is to really not make any judgements at this time.   It doesn't even matter what the DNC did or didn't do in the past.   

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 You don't see a conflict of interest in the people moderating the coin flips becoming Buttigieg delegates and the app being funded by Buttigieg's campaign and managed by Hillary backers?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Guys i read through the entire thread and i don't see any evidence here.  This is all speculation.  I'm in the IT field and i see bugs in systems developed from billion dollar companies all the time.   The statements provided as evidence are just other people stating their opinions.   To be completely unbiased is to really not make any judgements at this time.   It doesn't even matter what the DNC did or didn't do in the past.   

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

 

[Bno]

@Leo Gura How convenient that the bug favored Buttigieg and was only caught by non-Buttigieg voters. And also, what a coincidence that Bernie's app didn't catch a bug.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Inliytened1 You don't see a conflict of interest in the people moderating the coin flips becoming Buttigieg delegates and the app being funded by Buttigieg and managed by Hillary backers?

Whether i do or not is irrelevant if we are talking about speculation vs evidence of anything.  That was the point i was making.  

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 This is evidence of anti-democracy, i.e., rigging

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Inliytened1]

@Bno or someone jumping to conclusions and seeing what they wanna see........

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura How convenient that the bug favored Buttigieg and was only caught by non-Buttigieg voters. And also, what a coincidence that Bernie's app didn't catch a bug.

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.

 

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 Yea, people favoring a candidate with their bias who have been caught cheating before are now managing these caucuses and primaries and developing apps that conveniently had bugs that favored their candidate. As well as 3 coin flips from against 3 different candidates favoring the same candidate. There's an obvious pattern here to be concerned about.

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Bno said:

As well as 3 coin flips from against 3 different candidates favoring the same candidate. There's an obvious pattern here to be concerned about.

My sister gave birth to 3 girls in a row. Perhaps a pattern to be concerned with. . . 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv Idt you saw the videos of how in one of those videos Bernie had 101 people, Buttigieg had 60, they called it a draw, did a sketchy coin flip which was given to Buttigieg, and then the lady who did the coin flip was a Buttigieg delegate.

And then the other one in which the guy obviously looked at the coin after it landed on his hand, didn't like the result, and then flipped it on top of his hand to favor Buttigieg.

I shared these videos earlier in this thread.

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Also, my broader point is to say that politicians shouldn’t be financially invested in a company whose app reports the election results.

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.

[Forestluv]

@Bno A lot of your concerns are not about specific candidates. Those types of shenanigans are inherent to the circus-like caucus atmosphere. It's been going on in caucuses for every US election. This was the first election in which first and second vote totals were submitted and there was also greater scrutiny - this increased the transparency of underlying shenanigans that have always occurred between rival groups in caucuses. If you are concerned about the absurdity of caucuses, push for ranked choice voting. It is far superior. 

[Bno]

@Leo Gura The court ruled that as a private entity, the DNC can choose whoever they want as their nominee. It doesn't matter if its democratic or not. 

Let's also not forget that our country is run by people that interfere in other countries' elections. It's likely that they'd try to do the same thing domestically using similar tactics.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Bno]

@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.