4 ms·

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

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".
  - duxup 7y ago
    I don't think that speech means anything more than the things I cited. I feel like folks see something happen then hear a speech like they've never heard a campaign speech before and assume they're evidence of something... When John McCain was being nominated he gave a speech saying that he "knows where Osama Bin Laden is".... nobody really believed it literally.

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".
- duxup 7y ago
  I don't think that speech means anything more than the things I cited. I feel like folks see something happen then hear a speech like they've never heard a campaign speech before and assume they're evidence of something... When John McCain was being nominated he gave a speech saying that he "knows where Osama Bin Laden is".... nobody really believed it literally.