Iowa Caucus App

[Bno]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

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 i think 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 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.

I agree with you that nothing is absolute. It could be aliens that caused all of this to happen. But based on the information the public has, we can say it's not very likely aliens are controlling our election.

In the case here, it's like hypothesizing based on past events. If you see that a dog barks every time you show her food, it's likely that the next time you show her food she will also bark. We can't say absolutely she will bark, there's a chance that she may feel too sick to bark the next time you show her. But in the case we're dealing with here, with the same people moderating the establishment this time as last time, and with lobbying still being a problem corrupting them, and the myriad of other pieces of evidence, it's a pretty sound hypothesis to say that they were trying the same shenanigans again.

[whoareyou]

@Inliytened1  It's not a coincidence that mods on here have a clear bias towards Leo. I never see them (including you) challenge his views, you always tend to agree with him. In the case where your opinion is neutral or you are unsure - the mods still end up defending him. Clear survival strategy (to remain a mod on this site), weather you want to admit it or not. 

The rigging that was done by DNC has an overwhelming amount of evidence, that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge or to look at. What is going on with the app is also a huge red sign - that it's laughable to say that it's just a "bug". 

Leo may excel at other areas, but when it comes to politics - he has a huge bias with a lot of blind spots, and imho he is not competent enough yet to provide teachings to people in this area. Bno and Emerald both have far more better understanding of what is going on.

Leo's ego tactics are very simple - when you provide him evidence that goes against his view point, he will just tell you that you have a "survival bias", or he will dismiss it as a silly "conspiracy theory". Yet he refuses to take his own advice and become conscious of his own blind spots.

[Inliytened1]

@Bno i just don't see enough here.  I looked at the nikola thread and yeah, if the app was malfunctioning early on then there would have been issues.  But those were corrected and if you noticed the voting became deadlocked.  I think if there was malicious intent we wouldn't have seen a basic tie.  I think it was 3 votes off at one point?  Do they even know who won?  It just seems if they put that much time into planning this that they would not have made it so close - that wouldn't be worth the risk - would take too much effort, and honestly i think it would be giving them way too much credit.  But ill continue to follow along.

[Inliytened1]

15 hours ago, whoareyou said:

@Inliytened1  It's not a coincidence that mods on here have a clear bias towards Leo. I never see them (including you) challenge his views, you always tend to agree with him. In the case where your opinion is neutral or you are unsure - the mods still end up defending him. Clear survival strategy (to remain a mod on this site), weather you want to admit it or not. 

The rigging that was done by DNC has an overwhelming amount of evidence, that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge or to look at. What is going on with the app is also a huge red sign - that it's laughable to say that it's just a "bug". 

Leo may excel at other areas, but when it comes to politics - he has a huge bias with a lot of blind spots, and imho he is not competent enough yet to provide teachings to people in this area. Bno and Emerald both have far more better understanding of what is going on.

Leo's ego tactics are very simple - when you provide him evidence that goes against his view point, he will just tell you that you have a "survival bias", or he will dismiss it as a silly "conspiracy theory". Yet he refuses to take his own advice and become conscious of his own blind spots.

Ok - lets clear up this confusion right here then - i don't agree that there is any validity to Russiagate.  Does that make you feel better?   

I've known you from the forum for a while now -  it seems you are hellbent on pointing out Leo's faults...  Leo is a human being like the rest of us.  He has admitted before that he has his own biases that he is working through.   He aint perfect.  None of us are.    You guys shouldn't put him on a pedestal to begin with.

 

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 If Leo is wrong and we know he's wrong, then we need to be conscious enough to point it out to him so that others aren't misled.

 

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Inliytened1 If Leo is wrong and we know he's wrong, then we need to be conscious enough to point it out to him so that others aren't misled.

 

@Bno the fact is...even though personally i feel there is no validity to Russiagate - that doesn't mean that both of US aren't wrong.    So i don't see this urgency for him to come out and state he is wrong that you are seeing.   It seems like you are specifically targeting him for your own bias reasons not for his credibility.  Let him worry about his credibility.

[Bno]

@Inliytened1 Its to set an example of spiritual growth. He believes in Russiagate while nkt knowing enough about the issue, ignoring evidence when it's presented to him because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions, and also belittling and arrogantly treating people like doormats who politely challenged the notion with conscious facts. Much like he is doing rn.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

User @Bno has been banned. Warned him many times about using this forum in an ideological way. This clearly would continue.

@Emerald I didn't say I had a definite answer, I said you make rash and ideological accusations.

If you were calm and patient, the truth would reveal itself.

The most important thing I have to teach is how to not be ideological.

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

@Emerald I didn't say I had a definite answer, I said you make rash and ideological accusations.

If you were calm and patient, the truth would reveal itself.

The most important thing I have to teach is how to not be ideological.

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.’
 

 

[remember]

it’s really much more complicated than all of you might think. and there might be much more trump in all of this than expected. but it might or might not be  anyone involved in the disfunctioning of the app. it’s just the hardliners who would have voted for biden. it’s intelligent indeed - but do or don’t they want to win against trump? i always ask myself who is most likely to win - in the us it’s usually the most interesting candidate. but you can shuffle votes really easily from a to b, voting is a strategy game. people think about who they vote for in advance like in chess, you already predict as many scenarios as possible.

in a sense the app problem even makes the situation more transparent. i think it’s pretty low of the democratic conservatives and might even not work out. i guess everyone should maybe think about if they would prefer another trump legislation, using the same methods as right wingers use? (i’m referring to a local political phenomenon taking place in germany right now in the elections of one of the federal states - one of the most important factors is getting clear about what the coalitions want as a whole, there are parties inside of parties... it would confuse anybody)

Edited February 6, 2020 by remember

[Inliytened1]

@remember this is a perfect example of the point i was trying to make.  Now you have stuff coming out about a Trump conspiracy.  It's total chaos being stirred up purely through peoples political bias.

I wouldn't get caught up in more conspiracy theory at this point - whether its Trump or the DNC...simply let things unfold, as we have been saying.  

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

No, I was merely pointing out the most obvious and likely interpretation which was being overlooked in favor on some nefarious DNC plot.

You skipped "It was just a bug" and jumped straight to: "DNC plot to screw over Bernie" -- because that's what your paranoid mind was looking for.

A DNC plot is always possible. But it's foolish to jump to that conclusion based on so little evidence.

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I was merely pointing out the most obvious and likely interpretation which was being overlooked in favor on some nefarious DNC plot.

You skipped "It was just a bug" and jumped straight to: "DNC plot to screw over Bernie" -- because that's what your paranoid mind was looking for.

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.

 

[remember]

23 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@remember this is a perfect example of the point i was trying to make.  Now you have stuff coming out about a Trump conspiracy.  It's total chaos being stirred up purely through peoples political bias.

I wouldn't get caught up in more conspiracy theory at this point - whether its Trump or the DMC...simply let things unfold, as we have been saying.  

i’m not cought up in the dmc or in trump - i’m cought up in thuringia elections, i guess i’m just seeing it through pretty biased glasses. it’s not a one figure phenomenon - but of course you could say there is some synchronicity. i’m just watching phenomenas playing out, it will probably lead to a prediction at one point but i also don’t want to paint the devil at the wall - i’m just realizing how these things play out, because there are always devils in the game. and i was not sure if i wanted to talk about it here... because it is another situation, and it’s kind of frustrating, too. the only way out of this is getting more convinced about how the democrats can and would really win against trump and what he stands for - i’m not sure but heroes usually are people who have the guts for a change, villains are already having those guts - that’s in a sense even what brought trump into office, being different from what others did before him.

but you see that’s all pretty biased because my country at the moment has to face a political shock.

[whoareyou]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

User @Bno has been banned. Warned him many times about using this forum in an ideological way. This clearly would continue.

@Emerald I didn't say I had a definite answer, I said you make rash and ideological accusations.

If you were calm and patient, the truth would reveal itself.

The most important thing I have to teach is how to not be ideological.

It's a real shame that you banned one of the few  really knowledgeably people here who had a different perspective from yours. Imo you made a very subjective call - a lot of people would disagree with the fact that he was being "ideological". From my POV, he had a very balanced perspective, and shared a lot of good information here. The fact that you ban those that criticize your views and provide really good reasons why - should be a concern from a long term perspective.

While I respect you, I also think that your ego has gotten bigger - you always think you are right, never seen you admit on the forum that you are wrong, and don't consider point of views from other people here, just because you think you done the most amount of "work".

Instead of banning very intelligent individuals who have a different perspective - why not consider what he said? Is there not a chance that you are biased and don't see your own blind spots? If growth and truth is your priority - I think it was a huge mistake.

Edited February 6, 2020 by whoareyou

[Inliytened1]

@whoareyou i think he was spreading ideology because he flipped flopped.  When it came to Russiagate he was anti-conspiracy, but when it came to the DNC he was all over a conspiracy without giving things enough time.  So it brought to light that he had a political agenda on here.   At first it seemed he was being unbiased about Russiagate but now i am rethinking that he was not seeing Russiagate thru an unbiased lens based on how fast he flip flopped.   

Its not an easy job to police on here, and judgement calls are made.  But i wouldn't underestimate Leo's ability to see this stuff.  He saw it before i did.  And you still don't see it.

[whoareyou]

@Inliytened1  There was no flip flop. There is 0 evidence to Russiagate. 

With DNC, it is a proven fact in court about what happened in 2016 and what they did to Bernie.

Based on this, it makes sense to be cautious and not give the benefit of the doubt, like Emerald pointed out.

If somebody stolen from your or lied to you - would you continue to give them the benefit of the doubt? Of course you wouldn't, until they prove otherwise. And the same applies here - do you see this?

[Hatfort]

What's wrong now? All day stuck in 97%, why does it take so long to count the remaining 3%? I say this because I'm reading something about a recanvass. They haven't even finished counting yet! What recanvass? Is this a bad joke?

The difference is 0'1 now, 3% is still relevant.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Hatfort

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

@Inliytened1  

With DNC, it is a proven fact in court about what happened in 2016 and what they did to Bernie.

 

That has nothing to do with the present.  That's what got him into trouble jumping to conclusions.....there is zero evidence of a conspiracy here.  The stuff he was sending me were from people talking from a place of their OWN political bias.  But he was sure all over that.    When I'm sure if we provided the equal type of stuff on Russiagate he would have balked at it.

Do you sense a political agenda here?

[Leo Gura]

43 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

That's precisely backwards.

You are prioritizing survival over truth, which is is the mother of all human problems.

I'm not in this discussion to say, "Nananan bo boo. Told ya' so." I'm here to hopefully get readers to realize the origins of all evil -- stemming from self-bias of the mind.

When you put survival above truth, you become the devil. And as you do this, you imagine yourself to be an angel. If you really care about corruption, carefully contemplate what was said in my video: Understanding Corruption. The corruption starts and ends with you. You are not going to end evil with evil.

Your fear of getting fucked over is the evil which corrupts your mind. The very same evil which corrupts the minds of all those corporatists you fight against.

36 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

It's a real shame that you banned one of the few  really knowledgeably people here who had a different perspective from yours. Imo you made a very subjective call - a lot of people would disagree with the fact that he was being "ideological". From my POV, he had a very balanced perspective, and shared a lot of good information here. The fact that you ban those that criticize your views and provide really good reasons why - should be a concern from a long term perspective.

While I respect you, I also think that your ego has gotten bigger - you always think you are right, never seen you admit on the forum that you are wrong, and don't consider point of views from other people here, just because you think you done the most amount of "work".

Instead of banning very intelligent individuals who have a different perspective - why not consider what he said? Is there not a chance that you are biased and don't see your own blind spots? If growth and truth is your priority - I think it was a huge mistake.

As I said in another thread, a purge of bullshitters is underway.

He was given many warnings about his ideological promotions. This was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.