4 ms·

Do you think that Pete is so stupid to publicly pay a company to rig a caucus for him when caucus voting is literally public with a paper trail?

by sct202 7y ago

gremlinsinc 7y ago
He could be even more stupid to hire a company named Shadow Inc, that has ties to the DNC that could make him look complicit in any rigging should it happen. Was it smart? Definitely not. So stupid for one thing or another, still means stupid right?
ploxolo 7y ago
Whatever Gremlinsinc assessment of Pete's intelligence is, the facts he just listed have very bad optics for Pete, the DNC and the Democrat party. If they again squeeze Bernie out of the nomination, any other candidate will not have a strong base of supporters.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Judging by how this election season went so far up to this point (including all the primary debates controversies [0]), it seems like DNC didnt learn anything and decided to double down on their previous efforts. I predict that Bernie is almost definitely going to get squeezed out. 0. Referring mostly to that one where they asked Bernie a question based on a made up quote regarding female president viability, and then proceeded asking further questions from other candidates treating that quote as a fact, despite Bernie explicitly denying it mere seconds before. And Bernie isn’t even my first choice candidate, but seeing all this happen just felt really surreal and unfair.
Notorious_BLT 7y ago
The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning. This, along with the delay in announcing the results, is all an effort to influence the outcomes of the upcoming primaries by showing false "momentum" in Iowa. If the official results aren't out, no one can prove him wrong yet. This morning, above all other natural trending information on Twitter, Bloomberg had a tidal wave of articles promoted saying how good Iowa was for several candidates, none of which is supported by the data that I've seen. It seems Sanders won pretty substantially, and the DNC is trying to delay results to control the narrative long enough to get results from other states.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- duxup 7y ago
  "The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning" The POTUS claimed his inauguration crowd size was far larger than it actually was. Politicians talk big about polls that favor them ... often their own polls. Giving a speech is PR, not a conspiracy.
  - crystaldev 7y ago
    And distrusting the DNC is not a conspiracy theory. A political party is free to choose its candidate however it pleases, and it came out that they tampered with the 2016 results. A few months ago, Obama was quoted saying that if Sanders appeared to be the pick that he'd "step in," whatever that's supposed to mean. The whole thing is a circus.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Distrust is one thing, implying a conspiracy is another. There's a weird world of "Oh man here's all these mysterious connections... I'm not saying it is a conspiracy"... yeah you are.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - Notorious_BLT 7y ago
    His words were - "Looking at what happened last night, looking at all of the data that we've got, it was an extraordinary night and we are absolutely victorious coming into New Hampshire." That's not lying about turnout to a speech, its lying about the results of the political process. Coupled with the "coin flip" shenanigans that were (fortunately) overturned, the DNC claiming the delay is for "quality control", and the fact that numbers STILL haven't been released, its fair to say something shady is in play here. How can "quality control" for a caucus be executed when everyone has left and gone home? If we can have the results of a national election cleared up in a single day, there's no reason it should be taking this long. Also: we have all been taught to treat "conspiracy" as a dirty word. If multiple entities get together to do something shady, they have "conspired". That's "conspiracy". Do you also believe Jeffery Epstien killed himself? Because according to the authorities, any other story is "conspiracy theory".
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
No, but I think it’s within the realm of possibility that he delegated the rigging to someone who was. Declaring victory when results aren’t out is just hopelessly bizarre and demands a better explanation than overconfidence.
bassman9000 7y ago
Last time the person in charge of the debates rigged it in favor of Hillary, and ended up forming part of her campaign. In plain sight. Has happened before, keeps happening.
cbxyp 7y ago
Yes.

Do you think that Pete is so stupid to publicly pay a company to rig a caucus for him when caucus voting is literally public with a paper trail?

by sct202 7y ago

Do you think that Pete is so stupid to publicly pay a company to rig a caucus for him when caucus voting is literally public with a paper trail?

gremlinsinc 7y ago

He could be even more stupid to hire a company named Shadow Inc, that has ties to the DNC that could make him look complicit in any rigging should it happen. Was it smart? Definitely not. So stupid for one thing or another, still means stupid right?

ploxolo 7y ago

Whatever Gremlinsinc assessment of Pete's intelligence is, the facts he just listed have very bad optics for Pete, the DNC and the Democrat party. If they again squeeze Bernie out of the nomination, any other candidate will not have a strong base of supporters.

filoleg 7y ago
Judging by how this election season went so far up to this point (including all the primary debates controversies [0]), it seems like DNC didnt learn anything and decided to double down on their previous efforts. I predict that Bernie is almost definitely going to get squeezed out. 0. Referring mostly to that one where they asked Bernie a question based on a made up quote regarding female president viability, and then proceeded asking further questions from other candidates treating that quote as a fact, despite Bernie explicitly denying it mere seconds before. And Bernie isn’t even my first choice candidate, but seeing all this happen just felt really surreal and unfair.

Notorious_BLT 7y ago

The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning. This, along with the delay in announcing the results, is all an effort to influence the outcomes of the upcoming primaries by showing false "momentum" in Iowa. If the official results aren't out, no one can prove him wrong yet. This morning, above all other natural trending information on Twitter, Bloomberg had a tidal wave of articles promoted saying how good Iowa was for several candidates, none of which is supported by the data that I've seen. It seems Sanders won pretty substantially, and the DNC is trying to delay results to control the narrative long enough to get results from other states.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
duxup 7y ago
"The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning" The POTUS claimed his inauguration crowd size was far larger than it actually was. Politicians talk big about polls that favor them ... often their own polls. Giving a speech is PR, not a conspiracy.
- crystaldev 7y ago
  And distrusting the DNC is not a conspiracy theory. A political party is free to choose its candidate however it pleases, and it came out that they tampered with the 2016 results. A few months ago, Obama was quoted saying that if Sanders appeared to be the pick that he'd "step in," whatever that's supposed to mean. The whole thing is a circus.
  - duxup 7y ago
    Distrust is one thing, implying a conspiracy is another. There's a weird world of "Oh man here's all these mysterious connections... I'm not saying it is a conspiracy"... yeah you are.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- Notorious_BLT 7y ago
  His words were - "Looking at what happened last night, looking at all of the data that we've got, it was an extraordinary night and we are absolutely victorious coming into New Hampshire." That's not lying about turnout to a speech, its lying about the results of the political process. Coupled with the "coin flip" shenanigans that were (fortunately) overturned, the DNC claiming the delay is for "quality control", and the fact that numbers STILL haven't been released, its fair to say something shady is in play here. How can "quality control" for a caucus be executed when everyone has left and gone home? If we can have the results of a national election cleared up in a single day, there's no reason it should be taking this long. Also: we have all been taught to treat "conspiracy" as a dirty word. If multiple entities get together to do something shady, they have "conspired". That's "conspiracy". Do you also believe Jeffery Epstien killed himself? Because according to the authorities, any other story is "conspiracy theory".

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

No, but I think it’s within the realm of possibility that he delegated the rigging to someone who was. Declaring victory when results aren’t out is just hopelessly bizarre and demands a better explanation than overconfidence.

bassman9000 7y ago

Last time the person in charge of the debates rigged it in favor of Hillary, and ended up forming part of her campaign. In plain sight. Has happened before, keeps happening.

cbxyp 7y ago

Yes.