First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Iowa Caucus
51148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/16

Von_Goethe wrote:

Holy shit, Clinton actually apparently won six coin toss events, not just that one. Sanders won zero. 1 / 64 odds of that happening fairly (which doesn't by itself prove that it didn't, of course). Couple that with it turning out that a lot of precincts were not allowed to report their delegates due to insufficient participants, and it's pretty damned clear Sanders actually won, probably by a wider margin than Clinton fake-won. He's now calling for the disclosure of the popular vote results. Definitely a Gore vs. Bush in Florida situation.


What the hell? So there were 6 different locations that coincidentally decided to choose the winner with coin flips and Hillary just happened to win all of them? That sounds way too bizarre. I could understand maybe one precinct being stupid enough to do that, but 6 getting the same stupid idea and it just happens to go in Hillary's favor all the time? I'm not buying that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to think of going outside the building and picking up some random person to break the tie. Hillary won by 4 points. 6 of those weren't decided by actually voters. I know there's no rule against this, but it's messed up how Hillary managed to win just because multiple locations had the exact same idea of exploiting a flaw in the system.

Thankfully New Hampshire doesn't have a caucus so the chance of this happening over there is nearly impossible. Bernie will crush her in NH. Apparently he has stronger support there than in Iowa. If Iowa was this close, NH should be easy for him.


Nogara-san wrote:

TBH, I really haven't heard much about Rand Paul's policies. And from what I've little I've heard, they're really not any different than any other Republican that's out stumping.


He's actually a lot different from the rest of the republicans running. He's the only one who's always saying that marijuana shouldn't be a criminal offense. He says that the war on drugs has been a failure and that blacks shouldn't be thrown in jail for minor offenses that white people don't get in trouble for. Out of all the candidates running from both parties, Rand is the most anti-war candidate running and repeatedly speaks out against the failed foreign policy that overthrows regimes and gives terrorists control of those countries. He keeps saying that we should stop getting involved in every war in the world and quit giving arms to terrorists. Rand is famous for (aside from being Ron Paul's son) his extremely long filibusters in the Senate protesting against drone strikes being used against American citizens and the NSA's illegal spying. Ted Cruz used to be against mass surveillance too, but he flip flopped last year.

On social and foreign policies, Rand is closer to Bernie Sanders than he is to the republicans. The only significant differences between him and Bernie are their economic policies and Rand's belief that the federal government should be small. In fact, he's the only person running promising to give more power back to the states rather than accumulating all that power within the oval office. You can read more about his positions here.

I don't agree with 100% with every single position, but he's the most sane republican running and the only one offering new ideas rather than wanting to continue the same policies that have hurt the country. Much of the GOP hates him and the mainstream media tries to pretend he doesn't exist. All the other republicans try to pander to the far right and alienate anyone to the left or in the middle. That's good for the republican primary, but they don't understand that doing that is suicide in the general election. Unless they nominate Rand, the GOP will have an extremely hard time winning the White House. After Rand, Marco Rubio would probably be their best choice, but only because everyone else is just too crazy. If it wasn't for that, Rubio probably wouldn't get far since his track record is way too inconsistent to take seriously and his foreign policy is an exact clone of Hillary's, which republicans seem to love.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 2/2/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


Von_Goethe wrote:

Holy shit, Clinton actually apparently won six coin toss events, not just that one. Sanders won zero. 1 / 64 odds of that happening fairly (which doesn't by itself prove that it didn't, of course). Couple that with it turning out that a lot of precincts were not allowed to report their delegates due to insufficient participants, and it's pretty damned clear Sanders actually won, probably by a wider margin than Clinton fake-won. He's now calling for the disclosure of the popular vote results. Definitely a Gore vs. Bush in Florida situation.


What the hell? So there were 6 different locations that coincidentally decided to choose the winner with coin flips and Hillary just happened to win all of them? That sounds way too bizarre. I could understand maybe one precinct being stupid enough to do that, but 6 getting the same stupid idea and it just happens to go in Hillary's favor all the time? I'm not buying that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to think of going outside the building and picking up some random person to break the tie. Hillary won by 4 points. 6 of those weren't decided by actually voters. I know there's no rule against this, but it's messed up how Hillary managed to win just because multiple locations had the exact same idea of exploiting a flaw in the system.

Thankfully New Hampshire doesn't have a caucus so the chance of this happening over there is nearly impossible. Bernie will crush her in NH. Apparently he has stronger support there than in Iowa. If Iowa was this close, NH should be easy for him.


Nogara-san wrote:

TBH, I really haven't heard much about Rand Paul's policies. And from what I've little I've heard, they're really not any different than any other Republican that's out stumping.


He's actually a lot different from the rest of the republicans running. He's the only one who's always saying that marijuana shouldn't be a criminal offense. He says that the war on drugs has been a failure and that blacks shouldn't be thrown in jail for minor offenses that white people don't get in trouble for. Out of all the candidates running from both parties, Rand is the most anti-war candidate running and repeatedly speaks out against the failed foreign policy that overthrows regimes and gives terrorists control of those countries. He keeps saying that we should stop getting involved in every war in the world and quit giving arms to terrorists. Rand is famous for (aside from being Ron Paul's son) his extremely long filibusters in the Senate protesting against drone strikes being used against American citizens and the NSA's illegal spying. Ted Cruz used to be against mass surveillance too, but he flip flopped last year.

On social and foreign policies, Rand is closer to Bernie Sanders than he is to the republicans. The only significant differences between him and Bernie are their economic policies and Rand's belief that the federal government should be small. In fact, he's the only person running promising to give more power back to the states rather than accumulating all that power within the oval office. You can read more about his positions here.

I don't agree with 100% with every single position, but he's the most sane republican running and the only one offering new ideas rather than wanting to continue the same policies that have hurt the country. Much of the GOP hates him and the mainstream media tries to pretend he doesn't exist. All the other republicans try to pander to the far right and alienate anyone to the left or in the middle. That's good for the republican primary, but they don't understand that doing that is suicide in the general election. Unless they nominate Rand, the GOP will have an extremely hard time winning the White House. After Rand, Marco Rubio would probably be their best choice, but only because everyone else is just too crazy. If it wasn't for that, Rubio probably wouldn't get far since his track record is way too inconsistent to take seriously and his foreign policy is an exact clone of Hillary's, which republicans seem to love.



Now see, I really didn't know that. No lie.

Thank you.
14731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/2/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
What the hell? So there were 6 different locations that coincidentally decided to choose the winner with coin flips and Hillary just happened to win all of them? That sounds way too bizarre. I could understand maybe one precinct being stupid enough to do that, but 6 getting the same stupid idea and it just happens to go in Hillary's favor all the time? I'm not buying that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to think of going outside the building and picking up some random person to break the tie. Hillary won by 4 points. 6 of those weren't decided by actually voters. I know there's no rule against this, but it's messed up how Hillary managed to win just because multiple locations had the exact same idea of exploiting a flaw in the system.

Thankfully New Hampshire doesn't have a caucus so the chance of this happening over there is nearly impossible. Bernie will crush her in NH. Apparently he has stronger support there than in Iowa. If Iowa was this close, NH should be easy for him.


Think there's actually a rule FOR coin tosses--since a caucus is not an actual election that requires a recount like Gore '00 got--and removes any possible bias by the "random person in the street".
Either way, think we know by now what Lewis Carroll meant when Alice was caught in a "caucus race" that ran around in circles and didn't seem to have any start or stop point.

One particular analysis that was made was that Sanders had 84% of the 18-27 vote, and for comparison, Obama in '08 had 60.
NOBODY under the age of 30 is voting for Hillary, and nobody of that age is gullible enough to. (Largely due to Sanders' image of change and economic shakeup, while Hillary has "trust and Washington experience", quote, that their parents vote for.)
Not sure how that's going to play in New Hampshire's demographic, but they've already got a notorious leftwing tendency to pick the "radical" candidate even when the establishment candidate has the more accepted numbers, and two bad showings for Hil or Don in a row is going to make some serious headlines.
Sogno- 
45631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/3/16
coulda sworn the title of this thread said "Love cactus"

would have been more interesting to be honest...
48485 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 2/2/16
Not a democrat, I'm an independent, but was impressed with Bernie especially his speech at the end of the caucus. I think he really has a shot as the nominee. For the GOP, Rubio gave a great speech. Will be interesting to see what happens in NH and SC.
51148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/16
And Cruz just earned the slimeball of the year award...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carson-other-campaigns-sabotaged-us-dirty-tricks

The Cruz campaign had people all over Iowa telling everyone just moments before they went to vote that Carson dropped out and that they shouldn't vote for him. This was a lie, but it sure worked in convincing a lot of people to give up on voting for Carson.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 2/3/16
TRUMP for the WIN!

okey I would want bernie over clinton anyday..
but I also think both of them are "too old"... in various ways.

and clinton seems like she can't handle things and are played into some of the feminism crap (from all those women online saying to other women one should vote for clinton just because she is a women).
137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/3/16

PhantomGundam wrote:

He's actually a lot different from the rest of the republicans running. He's the only one who's always saying that marijuana shouldn't be a criminal offense. He says that the war on drugs has been a failure and that blacks shouldn't be thrown in jail for minor offenses that white people don't get in trouble for. Out of all the candidates running from both parties, Rand is the most anti-war candidate running and repeatedly speaks out against the failed foreign policy that overthrows regimes and gives terrorists control of those countries. He keeps saying that we should stop getting involved in every war in the world and quit giving arms to terrorists. Rand is famous for (aside from being Ron Paul's son) his extremely long filibusters in the Senate protesting against drone strikes being used against American citizens and the NSA's illegal spying. Ted Cruz used to be against mass surveillance too, but he flip flopped last year.

On social and foreign policies, Rand is closer to Bernie Sanders than he is to the republicans. The only significant differences between him and Bernie are their economic policies and Rand's belief that the federal government should be small. In fact, he's the only person running promising to give more power back to the states rather than accumulating all that power within the oval office. You can read more about his positions here.

I don't agree with 100% with every single position, but he's the most sane republican running and the only one offering new ideas rather than wanting to continue the same policies that have hurt the country. Much of the GOP hates him and the mainstream media tries to pretend he doesn't exist. All the other republicans try to pander to the far right and alienate anyone to the left or in the middle. That's good for the republican primary, but they don't understand that doing that is suicide in the general election. Unless they nominate Rand, the GOP will have an extremely hard time winning the White House. After Rand, Marco Rubio would probably be their best choice, but only because everyone else is just too crazy. If it wasn't for that, Rubio probably wouldn't get far since his track record is way too inconsistent to take seriously and his foreign policy is an exact clone of Hillary's, which republicans seem to love.


He suspended his campaign today. I still don't think Rand Paul is half the man his father is, but it's still kind of unfortunate. I think he believed he would have a better chance than his father by trying to appear a little more moderate than his father (or maybe that is just a sincere difference in their personalities), when it turned out this was an election that demanded the radical. I think Trump ended up claiming quite a few supporters who probably would have gone for Paul if they could have looked past his blandness.
51148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/16

Von_Goethe wrote:

He suspended his campaign today. I still don't think Rand Paul is half the man his father is, but it's still kind of unfortunate. I think he believed he would have a better chance than his father by trying to appear a little more moderate than his father (or maybe that is just a sincere difference in their personalities), when it turned out this was an election that demanded the radical. I think Trump ended up claiming quite a few supporters who probably would have gone for Paul if they could have looked past his blandness.


Yeah. When I woke up, all I saw were headlines about Rand dropping out. It's crazy. The media spent the last 3 years either talking bad about him or simply ignoring him. He came in 5th in Iowa and the mainstream media didn't mention his name once, but they eagerly focused on Jeb, Kasich, and Christie. All of them were below Rand. Now that he's dropped out, none of the major news source can stop talking about Rand. I've seen more headlines about this in the last few hours than Huckabee, O'Malley, and Santorum combined. It's like the media was waiting for him to no longer be in the presidential race for them to finally start saying his name in public. They're not even trying to hide this anymore. He's getting way more coverage now that he dropped out.

What I don't understand is why the sudden decision. He was optimistic Monday night and said he'll aim higher in New Hampshire. Everyone knows the small state of Iowa hardly represents the GOP, so I doubt that crushed his hopes. New Hampshire is a more libertarian-friendly state and unlike the Iowa caucus, independents will be able to vote so I imagine he would have an easier time there. His opponent for the Senate reelection isn't putting up much of a fight. He was in such high spirit after seeing he surpassed almost all the establishment candidates. Then yesterday he fell completely silent. I can't shake the feeling that something happened yesterday that caused such a 180. It's way too early to drop out.

It's a shame to see him go. Before Trump hijacked the election, Rand was the leading anti-establishment candidate. Now we have people swarming to Cruz because he looks electable compared to Trump. As we saw from the last debate, without Trump around putting on a circus act, Cruz has no one to look good next to. I guess in Iowa it was too late to change their minds by that point. Jeb probably would've sunk eventually with or without Trump. His last name alone is enough to turn people away and a lot of his former supporters jumped over to Rubio.

The only honest guy running now is Bernie. Everyone else is either too stupid, too corrupt, or both. Cruz always says he's the "heir" to the liberty movement, but then he always stabs people in the back the very next day. I don't know why so people are buying his lies and don't look at his actions. His campaign tactics also get sleazier every day. Rubio is probably the only republican at this point who has a chance in a general election, but he's a republican clone of Hillary minus the scandals. If Bernie gets the democrat nomination and if it looks like he'll be in a close fight, I'll probably vote for him. I don't think it's good for any one party to be in power for too long, but Bernie is the only one left who isn't bought by big banks and who doesn't want to bomb the Middle East off the map. Besides, this will make it easier for Rand to run again in 2020... Unless Kanye decides to be the new Trump and hijack the election.
97899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 2/3/16
No one outside of the Establishment will stand much chance changing anything for the public good if they win the nomination and then get elected President. The power brokers within those hallowed halls in DC are so entrenched only a megaton nuclear blast can clear them out (wishful thinking on my part, not practical or ethical). Whoever gets elected has to deal with the entrenched within the system. If the newbie's ideals mirror that of the well to do interests within (crony capitalists) all will be well; otherwise, he/she will be smacking their hands up against the concrete wall of NO. Not even the renegade use of Executive privilege would prevail (this is the issue the maverick Trump will face should he be able to pull it off and beat out the Jebster or Hitlery).

I didn't use to think this way but the last 4 election cycles suggest I need to stop remaining naive to the Presidential election process. Everything is for sale. Marie Antoinette would feel at home in DC or managing the body politic.

There is 1 fantasy I still maintain that will not be realized likely in my lifetime. In fact I'm almost certain the world may witness the 2nd Coming before Hitlery and her dufus of a husband get what they deserve for past crimes. Her pant suits are almost the color I want to see her wear permanently (orange) but, darn it, there is/are still no state or Fed-sponsored 3-letter initials printed on the back (DOC--Department of Corrections--within your state or federal prison of choice) yet will she rails about the states shrieking her usual apocryphal rhetoric . She's an inept, habitual liar, uber-manipulative, self-serving to a fault. That said, as long as she can be managed from within by the cronies, power-brokers over here she can win. Boo hoo for us all.

If change is to occur it won't be trickling down from DC. DC is only going to do just enough to preserve itself; hell with the rest of us. Mark Levin has a good suggestion re Article 5. If we want change we're going to have to do it at the state level in all the states. Forget Washington: it's not going to happen there.

Not a Dem or elephant either. Neither side represents my interests. Actually, neither is adversarial toward the other anymore. They've assimilated and become 1 fat, sassy country club. For us, too bad that.
14731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/16 , edited 2/4/16

bemused_Bohemian wrote:
Not a Dem or elephant either. Neither side represents my interests. Actually, neither is adversarial toward the other anymore.


(plllfffttt!! drink-spray!! )
Uhhhhh, yeah: Good thing Trump's not adversarial, after spending the last eight years offering a reward for Obama's "secret" Kenyan birth certificate, in the hopes that every bill he ever signed will have to be disqualified, healthcare included.

The two parties have just been BUDDY-BUDDY since Bush Sr. dropped Reagan's ball and Bill Clinton went on fame and glory...That's why they don't mind Hillary running, you know!
If Hillary's campaigns have been all they've been able to talk about for the last twelve years, it's because they're excited about it!
51148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/16
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-please-clap-205248419.html

This is just too sad, even for Jeb. You know you're finished when you have to resort to begging your audience to clap. I would feel more sorry for him if he wasn't a Bush.

I'm surprised he hasn't taken the hint yet that nobody wants him.



Ejanss wrote:

(plllfffttt!! drink-spray!! )
Uhhhhh, yeah: Good thing Trump's not adversarial, after spending the last eight years offering a reward for Obama's "secret" Kenyan birth certificate, in the hopes that every bill he ever signed will have to be disqualified, healthcare included.

The two parties have just been BUDDY-BUDDY since Bush Sr. dropped Reagan's ball and Bill Clinton went on fame and glory...That's why they don't mind Hillary running, you know!
If Hillary's campaigns have been all they've been able to talk about for the last twelve years, it's because they're excited about it!


I don't know if Trump questioned Obama's birth certificate to whip republicans into a frenzy or if he honestly believed he was born in Kenya. Whatever the case, he's definitely no enemy of the democrats. The only consistent criticism he's had of any democrat has been directed only towards Obama. Aside from that, he's been a life long democrat and loves the Clintons.

On the surface, the two parties are bitter enemies. Behind the scenes, they compromise to pass legislation that screws us over but benefits them. The republicans promised to fight against Obama's agenda, but when they finally got a majority in the Senate they dedicated themselves to giving Obama as much money as he wants to pay for whatever he wants that's not named Obamacare. Republicans and democrats get most of what they want without fighting. Issues like Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and gun control are brought up occasionally to make us think that both parties aren't getting anything done together.

The republicans keep ganging up on Hillary not because they disagree with her, but because they're obsessed with power and want to be the ones to take credit for aggressive policies that Hillary is already associated with. Because of that, they generally view Hillary as a threat who already stands above them and must be replaced. More specifically, they want to be the ones to replace her. They want to be the ones who get money from big banks, lead our military into war, control the media, buy off all the smaller politicians, etc.
14731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/16 , edited 2/4/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
The two parties have just been BUDDY-BUDDY since Bush Sr. dropped Reagan's ball and Bill Clinton went on fame and glory...That's why they don't mind Hillary running, you know!
If Hillary's campaigns have been all they've been able to talk about for the last twelve years, it's because they're excited about it!


I don't know if Trump questioned Obama's birth certificate to whip republicans into a frenzy or if he honestly believed he was born in Kenya.
The republicans keep ganging up on Hillary not because they disagree with her, but because they're obsessed with power and want to be the ones to take credit for aggressive policies that Hillary is already associated with. Because of that, they generally view Hillary as a threat who already stands above them and must be replaced. More specifically, they want to be the ones to replace her. They want to be the ones who get money from big banks, lead our military into war, control the media, buy off all the smaller politicians, etc.


Seriously, the Republicans have literally been OBSESSED with the idea of Hillary running with landslide support, for the last three elections--That's part of how we got Sarah Palin in the first place, when the Republicans were trying to sell "We've got a female candidate too!"
When there was talk of the Republican lineup for '08, '12, '16, the main discussion point was not "Who can appeal to the wide mainstream?", or "Who can carry a conservative message to the new younger voters?", it was literally "Who can we get to beat Hillary?" Those were always the first words used. Even when she wasn't running.

But why were they so preoccupied with thinking that, when even the Democrats loudly despised her and wished for another candidate, and fell head over heels for Obama as Hillary dropped farther and farther out of the '08 numbers? Against, it wasn't "a female candidate", and it wasn't her personality. It was that last name.
The 80's Republicans, living high on their majority, thought Ronald Reagan would live forever like the conservative Olympian God he was--Yes, there was talk at the time of whether we, quote, "still needed" the two-term rule, so that Reagan could be elected a third, fourth and fifth time. And when he didn't, as it must to all old men, and Bush Sr. was defeated in one term, it was bad enough, but when even a sex scandal and impeachment hearings couldn't take down Bill Clinton's popularity and approval ratings (c'mon, aren't you supposed to like, leave office if you're impeached, like Nixon?), he seemed frustratingly unstoppable to them, leading the entire country dancing behind him like a liberal Pied Piper. Worrying about the opposing party winning is one thing, but the Ahab obsessiveness with living to make sure no Democratic president ever succeeds in any achievement once elected goes away beyond party politics--It almost starts to take on the morally dedicated tone of AVENGING THE DEAD. And you don't have to work too hard on trying to figure out which dead they're avenging.

The idea of Hillary running, whether the Democrats wanted her to or not, was pretty much When, Not If, when her ego went around in Bill's campaign saying "Vote for him and get ME!", and she carpetbagged herself into that NY senator seat after we complained that Elizabeth Dole at least had cabinet experience. But whereas the Democrats see it as just trying to extinguish a flaming ego, the Republicans see it as sixteen potential imperialist years of a Clinton Dynasty--Obama's Bill-like charismatic hold on the public included--and try just as hard to "prevent" it as they did in '92. For them, twenty-four years haven't passed.
137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/6/16 , edited 2/6/16
Okay, never mind, I guess Clinton did cheat on the coin tosses from the look of things. Turns out Sanders actually won five of the six.

https://www.rt.com/usa/331534-democrats-errors-iowa-caucus/
51148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/6/16
So the Iowa winners from both parties pretty much cheated and refuse to admit they were wrong. Why am I not surprised?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.