The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So, cancel culture debate aside, here's where we're at with Iowa.

The IDP has awarded Buttigieg two pledged delegates over Sanders, despite that Sanders came out ahead in the popular vote and that Buttigieg's SDE lead is 0.1%. The Sanders campaign is, predictably, contesting the results.

The problem from here is the IDP is refusing to budge, claiming a legal argument that rejecting, overriding, or amending precinct results is electoral fraud, as caucus math worksheets are legal documents and to alter their results -- even to correct glaring mathematical and clerical errors -- is election fraud. Never mind that correcting errors in legal documentation is perfectly legal, so long as those errors are recorded and the act of correction is also recorded. And, the Democratic party's own legal argument four years ago in the Sanders lawsuit was, as a private corporation they're under no legal obligation to abide by caucus or primary results, making the entire point of whether legally correcting legal documents is tantamount to election fraud or not, completely moot.

Just, never mind these deep, systematic, and disturbingly common errors overwhelmingly favor one candidate (Buttigieg) and disfavor another (Sanders)...also never mind the Buttigieg campaign has been actively courting and donating to those involved in the Iowa Democratic party on the local and state level.

Saying the only way to avoid election fraud is to allow fraudulent results based on fraudulent paperwork to stand, to "protect the integrity of the process", is peak 2020. And according to the IDP, correcting mathematical errors is a matter of "personal opinion". Once again, Iowa Democrats out here doing God's work making Katherine Harris look like D.B. Cooper.

Still no word on the shittiest coin tosses in human history.

Thus, eyes turn towards Nevada...where the Democratic party's plan is to use a "tool" accessible on iPads owned, distributed, and administrated by the party, which will have early voting/caucusing results pre-tabulated and caucus administrators can use to calculate and upload caucus results in real time. But it's not an app. Nevada Democrats have not disclosed the name or mechanism of the tool, nor who created it, nor provided any real information on it or guarantee of its safety, security, or robustness.

But at least the Nevada Democratic party hired a new "Voter Protection Director"! ...who, coincidence of coincidences, happened to be a Buttigieg staffer.

Thought Iowa was a dumpster fire? Nevada to the rescue, backing up a truck full of tires and dirty diapers to throw in there.

 

[tstorm823]

The IDP has awarded Buttigieg two pledged delegates over Sanders, despite that Sanders came out ahead in the popular vote and that Buttigieg's SDE lead is 0.1%. The Sanders campaign is, predictably, contesting the results.

It's moments like this where you just stop and remember "oh yeah, there are superdelegates involved in this two. Bernie needs like 10% margin in actual delegates to win".

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

It's moments like this where you just stop and remember "oh yeah, there are superdelegates involved in this two. Bernie needs like 10% margin in actual delegates to win".

My favorite part is when the elephants in donkey suits screech, piss, and moan about this clusterfuck being "Bernie's fault" because his campaign was the one that insisted on transparency and accountability in the caucuses. No, they were always this big of a clusterfuck, this year happened because of the DNC's recommendations as to how to implement the "reforms", and the difference between 2020 and any previous year was this time they got caught because of the transparency the Bernie campaign insisted upon.

Same playbook as 2016, DARVO and gaslight. You'd think the answer to getting caught ratfucking is "don't ratfuck", but these clowns are apparently surgically attached to Mickey's choccy starfish.

On the bright side, people are taking a second look at Buttigieg's donor list and realizing on it are billionaires materially implicated in the Epstein shitshow, billionaires caught up in the past cycle's "fake news" drama, Trump's business partners and associates, and literally a Russian oligarch and Putin surrogate.

 

[Trunkage]

Dreiko is effectively arguing that suffering repercussions for that is morally the same as suffering discrimination for one's sexuality.

That wasn't the argument being made. I believe the argument Dreiko was trying to make was that a victim of discrimination only has trouble when interacting with those who discriminate, and only if they know the thing they discriminate over. Someone who is "cancelled" can't go to somewhere safer or try to avoid controversy because the Twitter mob follows them to protest wherever they go.

It's not about moral equivalency. It's that some people hating you isn't the same experience as psychotic internet vigilantes following you around trying to destroy your life. Alex Jones earns some resentment, and just being gay doesn't, but most gay people don't have an angry mob protesting every business that works with them.

You're correct. It isn't moral equivalent. here's what is: What Jones actually did was have PSYCHOTIC INTERNET VIGILANTES FOLLOW MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS AROUND TO DESOTRY THEIR LIFE BECUASE THEY HAD THE AUDACITY TO ASK FOR SOME GUN REFORM AFTER FREINDS AND FAMILY WERE KILLED. But sure. Poor Alex Jones and him not being on Youtube. He has to make money on his own platform. Oh, and he said some stupid conspiracy stuff that lead to a mass shooting. Now crisis actors are a thing in MSM because apparently gun violence is just a made up thing. Clap, clap Jones. If you didn't want to be a target, stop making targets out of other people.

Cancel Culture has ALWAYS existed. The only difference now is that the Left are doing it back to the Right. Well, and it has a catchy name. I don't agree with Cancel Culture, but I also understand that being nice hasn't worked. Maybe getting some of their own treatment will help. I think it fails, just like Alex Jones style Cancel Culture failed - it's not always based on facts. I would say that 1. Some target CC have correct, where I don't know of many Alex Jones targets being accurate. 2. He took it a step further, if you hadn't noticed from the all caps. He didn't target people who might morally repugnant. He targeted political enemies and sent internet mobs after them. (Mind you, this is what Trump does. And the Left has been pointing this out for a while now)

So, if you want to know if Cancel Culture gets worse. Yes. Yes it can. They're going to start sending internet mobs after you for just talking about getting rid of Social Security or privatising the army, etc. Because that's how they are currently being treated.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

"Don't have a right to be your true self and not expect any reaction".

That "reaction" involves threat of violence and death. That "reaction" involves disownment and homelessness. You're saying gay people don't have a right to be free of that, because they can stay in the closet.

That's fucking sickening.

You seem to be confused that I think it's a good thing just because I'm pointing out it's less bad.

Yes, when you have a leeway to avoid something, which is something people canceled do not have, you have it easier, while simultaneously being in sickening circumstances. Both things are true.

I said they shouldn't close his account.

You said it was worse to be "cancelled" on Twitter than to be the target of discrimination as a gay person. You specifically said the latter was easier.

So, yes, its relevant. What's more difficult, pray tell? Losing a bank account, and so you have to instruct your private accountant to shift your millions to a different bank?

Or losing your home, getting the shit beaten out of you in the street?

Have some sense of perspective.

It's worse not by the metric of which is more difficult necessarily (though I could make an argument on that easily, but it has been made by others above) but mainly by the metric of which is more unfair. Individuals get to act out in their discretion and disown or evict people. BANKS are supposed to be neutral and impartial and available to everyone because that system underpins our society.

Can you imagine the phone company cutting your phone line because you used your phone to be mean to people or even instruct them to commit crimes? Where does this stop? Does your city exile you off of public property because you used the street corner to sell drugs? Do you need to create a fiefdom in your locale to be able to live now if you do something random mobs of unelected randoms online think you deserve to be wiped out of existence with no trial involved? Such a state of affairs would be utter chaos and that is easily the bigger evil.

 

[tstorm823]

snip

That was very loud.

I had no intention of defending vigilante behavior from any perspective. I just wanted the debate to refocus, because someone being hated was being compared to someone being hunted, and that's not a fair comparison. Obviously the hunting coming from different groups is comparable, and yes it's worse to target shooting victims than public figures. But nobody should be doing that crap for any reason. We have courts for justice, and Alex Jones has been taken to court over these things. Anyone going beyond that personally is just making sport out of it.

 

[Silvanus]

That wasn't the argument being made. I believe the argument Dreiko was trying to make was that a victim of discrimination only has trouble when interacting with those who discriminate, and only if they know the thing they discriminate over. Someone who is "cancelled" can't go to somewhere safer or try to avoid controversy because the Twitter mob follows them to protest wherever they go.

It's not about moral equivalency.

Seanchaidh covered my thoughts on the relative severity: Alex Jones still has his insanely lucrative job; he is not entitled to defame and threaten death without protest.

On the "moral equivalency" thing, yes, Dreiko made an equivalence when he argued that gay people don't have a right to "be their authentic self and not expect a reaction". He's saying that the choice Jones has (to defame and threaten others and face protest, or to not do that) is equivalent to a gay person's "choice" (to stay in the closet, or not to).

 

[Silvanus]

[
You seem to be confused that I think it's a good thing just because I'm pointing out it's less bad.

Yes, when you have a leeway to avoid something, which is something people canceled do not have, you have it easier, while simultaneously being in sickening circumstances. Both things are true.

This is you putting forward the option of staying in the closet as a viable and reasonable way to live.

You did not say it was "sickening"; you said that because staying in the closet is an option, gay people do not have a "right" to live without discrimination.

It's worse not by the metric of which is more difficult necessarily (though I could make an argument on that easily, but it has been made by others above) but mainly by the metric of which is more unfair. Individuals get to act out in their discretion and disown or evict people. BANKS are supposed to be neutral and impartial and available to everyone because that system underpins our society.

So you consider something more unfair purely because of where it comes from? Regardless of what caused it, or the severity of the situation?

So, someone suffering a minor inconvenience-- as Jones did-- at the hands of a bank, because of his threatening, defamatory and abusive behaviour, is more unfair than someone suffering disownment at the hands of their parents for their sexuality?

Can you imagine the phone company cutting your phone line because you used your phone to be mean to people or even instruct them to commit crimes? Where does this stop? Does your city exile you off of public property because you used the street corner to sell drugs? Do you need to create a fiefdom in your locale to be able to live now if you do something random mobs of unelected randoms online think you deserve to be wiped out of existence with no trial involved? Such a state of affairs would be utter chaos and that is easily the bigger evil.

But that situation isn't fucking happening. He suffered a minor inconvenience and had to change his bank. Hes still employed. He can go wherever he wants. He still makes millions and is followed by millions of people. You said that's materially worse than systemic discrimination- including threat of death.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Okay guys, if you want to argue about cancel culture could you make a different thread? Seriously. Anyhow.

Primary news round-up so far...

Today started off great for Bloomberg, proving his bipartisan appeal by winning both Republican and Democratic primaries in Dixville Notch. The troubled precinct nearly lost its "first in the nation" status this year, when investigation revealed only four of its voters actually lived in the precinct; the status was saved when one of its voters moved back into the precinct.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country seems to be figuring out Bloomberg's a racist, thanks to the surfacing of speech and conservative talk radio excerpts the billionaire long fought in the courts to suppress. In these excerpts, Bloomberg ardently defended stop-and-frisk by saying, in essence, all black people look the same, and that if anything it's actually racist against white people. Appealing to the "blue lives matter" voter is a bold move, and we'll see how it works out in Nevada and South Carolina; I don't believe Buttigieg will give those votes up so easily.

Klobmentum seems to be heating up as Amy Klobuchar throws a stapler into the New Hampshire race, scoring early victories in the other New Hampshire precincts that vote at midnight and no one gives a shit about. With a commanding eight votes, she shows real potential of actually meeting the viability threshold this time.

The loud wet farting noises from New England for once aren't coming from the Trump campaign, despite their best efforts to disrupt the New Hampshire primary by holding a Presidential rally the night before it. No, this time they're coming from MSNBC, as perpetual deer-in-the-headlights Chuck Todd compared Bernie supporters to Nazi brown shirts on live national television. This follows a tough weekend for MSNBC kickstarted by Chris Matthews, who on Friday night compared Sanders to Fidel Castro, and modestly suggested that if Bernie wins there will be mass public executions.

No word yet on whether there will be a live debate between the two on whether Bernie is a Nazi, a Communist, or secretly Megatron. If the loud screeching noises from Joy Reid's office are any indication, consensus will quickly and effortlessly be reached that whatever he is, Bernie is bad and the prospect of his nomination bodes poorly for MSNBC's parent company Comcast, and its investors America.

Fox News is reported to face millions' of dollars in FCC fines as several of its anchors inexplicably, furiously, masturbated on-air during its morning news block.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Polls have closed in New Hampshire and results are coming in (currently at 10%). I'll update the results once calls are made.

Note: update may be delayed as I have an evening meeting that may not get out until after 12m EST.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Alright, last post on this side-debate now that we have elections going.

[
You seem to be confused that I think it's a good thing just because I'm pointing out it's less bad.

Yes, when you have a leeway to avoid something, which is something people canceled do not have, you have it easier, while simultaneously being in sickening circumstances. Both things are true.

This is you putting forward the option of staying in the closet as a viable and reasonable way to live.

You did not say it was "sickening"; you said that because staying in the closet is an option, gay people do not have a "right" to live without discrimination.

It's worse not by the metric of which is more difficult necessarily (though I could make an argument on that easily, but it has been made by others above) but mainly by the metric of which is more unfair. Individuals get to act out in their discretion and disown or evict people. BANKS are supposed to be neutral and impartial and available to everyone because that system underpins our society.

So you consider something more unfair purely because of where it comes from? Regardless of what caused it, or the severity of the situation?

So, someone suffering a minor inconvenience-- as Jones did-- at the hands of a bank, because of his threatening, defamatory and abusive behaviour, is more unfair than someone suffering disownment at the hands of their parents for their sexuality?

Can you imagine the phone company cutting your phone line because you used your phone to be mean to people or even instruct them to commit crimes? Where does this stop? Does your city exile you off of public property because you used the street corner to sell drugs? Do you need to create a fiefdom in your locale to be able to live now if you do something random mobs of unelected randoms online think you deserve to be wiped out of existence with no trial involved? Such a state of affairs would be utter chaos and that is easily the bigger evil.

But that situation isn't fucking happening. He suffered a minor inconvenience and had to change his bank. Hes still employed. He can go wherever he wants. He still makes millions and is followed by millions of people. You said that's materially worse than systemic discrimination- including threat of death.

Nobody has a right to live without the sort of discrimination that is defined by people disowning you or disagreeing with your life choices and based on that acting in ways that end up making your life unfairly difficult, no. And yeah I didn't say that it was sickening initially, in the subsequent post I was agreeing with you who said it so that it'd be more explicit and less easy to misinterpret.

Finally, yes, who the injustice comes from is a huge barometer in how unjust it is. It's why when a cop breaks the law it's worse than if a random person does it because a cop is supposed to enforce it so the violation is more egregious. Similarly, when a bank, an institution which underpins pretty much everything pertaining to society in this day and age where you can't really live fully without a credit card, starts being influenced by online mobs into closing people's bank accounts which were in good standing, any rational individual should hear alarm bells ringing.

Who this happens to is irrelevant. It's the thing edge of the wedge. You are ok if it happens to Alex Jonens so you'll be somewhat ok if it happened to Sargon and you may or may not be ok if it happens to Rogan and it goes like that until we can't stop it happening to anyone any more. Gotta react to this fast. The phone company situation isn't happening YET, I'd like to keep it that way. China already has a social credit system where if you score low you are not allowed to LEAVE THE COUNTRY, this is not just theoretical debate or dystopic science fiction dude.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

CNN is reporting Andrew Yang is dropping out of the race [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/new-hampshire-primary-2020-live-updates/h_1aa6f510551b1ad4507dbd085610972a].

 

[Seanchaidh]

Biden, Warren, and Steyer seem to be under viability and will receive no delegates. Klobuchar is in a strong third, fighting Buttigieg for second. Bennett drops out; points if you knew he was even still in the race. Even more points if you spell his name correctly (which I did not).

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Biden and Warren seem to be under viability and will receive no delegates. Klobuchar is in a strong third, fighting Buttigieg for second.

Viability is not an issue in primaries. That only applies to Caucuses.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Washington Post is reporting that Senator Michael Bennett is dropping out of the race. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-bennet-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/02/11/ce6c2dea-442c-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Biden and Warren seem to be under viability and will receive no delegates. Klobuchar is in a strong third, fighting Buttigieg for second.

Viability is not an issue in primaries. That only applies to Caucuses.

That is not what I've read.

https://www.270towin.com/content/thresholds-for-delegate-allocation-2020-democratic-primary-and-caucus
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Biden and Warren seem to be under viability and will receive no delegates. Klobuchar is in a strong third, fighting Buttigieg for second.

Viability is not an issue in primaries. That only applies to Caucuses.

That is not what I've read.

https://www.270towin.com/content/thresholds-for-delegate-allocation-2020-democratic-primary-and-caucus
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

Kind of [https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delegate-Selection-Rules-12.17.18-FINAL.pdf] (Rule 14). Individual delegate districts have the 15% rules, but the state as a whole, so you can still get district-level delegates without reaching statewide viability.

EDIT: I stand corrected [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/new-hampshire-primary-2020-live-updates/h_16b44e3679f66b4445d776a640c45ce1].

 

[crimson5pheonix]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/1227419160075960320"]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bernie Sanders declares victory. (Correctly.)

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Biden getting 5th and leaving the state before it was even over and only talking to his followers and people who worked on his campaign all this time on a video service for 5 minutes is embarrassing. Everyone who was claiming he was more electable than Bernie on tv should be fired and replaced by dogs who decide on candidates by popping balloons with their names inside of them. Would be at least just as accurate.


I was expecting Bernie to do well here so this is not too surprising but it's exciting nonetheless. Somehow they managed to count the vote without an APP, btw. It must be magic.