Don't let the DNC break your heart.
After the Iowa farce and now the obvious pre-rigging already taking place in Nevada it seems to me that the DNC isn’t even attempting to hide their rat-fuckery this time around. So WTF is going on?
If they aren’t completely brain-dead then they have to know we’ve been on to them since 2016 (some of you way longer than that) so they have to know we’re watching their every move now and yet the thievery is even more open and in our face now than it was last time. While the reasons they’re rigging it are obvious, the puzzling part to me was why are they are doing it so openly when they know so many are watching. Of course they’ve already made it abundantly clear over time that they don’t give a rat’s ass about their base or what we want. Some time in the not so distant past they learned that no matter how bad they fuck us over, in the end we’d fall in line and vote blue in the general election. It’s what we do and this time scary Donald will surely force us to surrender even quicker. That’s what they think. So there’s that. But I also wonder if their caucus and primary machinations don’t have a dual purpose and aren't also designed to demoralize Bernie voters to the point that we don’t even bother to go to the polls at all. I have a hunch that that that may work for them at least in a small way. I know that I personally get so frustrated sometimes I just feel like walking away from it all and letting the shit fall where it falls. But then I watch some establishment tool on this or that so called news program trying his/her best to derail Bernie’s campaign and then I see Bernie remaining calm and staying steadfastly committed to his message and that inspires me to keep it together at least long enough to fill in the circle next to his name in the primary. I'll do that but the DNC needs to wake up and fully understand that if their efforts to squash Bernie succeed there is no in way in hell they’ll get my vote in the general. Vote blue my ass., been there, done that. Doesn’t work anymore.
Comments
Cheers, burnt out!
Thanks for your musings at a time that is disturbingly less than amusing. It’s difficult to give up when the stakes are so high. Thanks for keeping the faith while your heart breaks.
[video:https://youtu.be/zJderGveh4s]
Morning janis
If we throw in the towel we'd be giving them exactly what they want so at the least I can take a wee bit of satisfaction knowing that my continued support for Bernie serves as a thorn poking them in the ass. And although it looks like they're intent on stealing the election again it remains to be seen whether they'll get away with it this time but regardless of the outcome, every single dollar and every single vote we give to Bernie makes it harder for them to cover their tracks.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Not voting would serve the establishment goal well
Even if a person gets to the point where they realistically expect to be cheated of representation, depressed turnout will seal the fate of progressive challengers down-ticket.
If they cheat on the headliner contest it would still be sweet to send a bunch more trouble-makers to office up and down the rest of the ticket.
Excellent point
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
The DNC will not fund anyone who runs
against an incumbent. Wasserman-Schultz went so far as to refuse to assist a Democrat in Fla. who was running against an incumbent Republican.
It is the same fight against the same corruption in both up and down races.
The Democratic Party has outlived its' usefulness and needs to be replaced.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The DNC isn't funding Bernie's campaign, we are
And I have heard that he is doing pretty well vs. his primary opponents.
Bernie wins the first vote...
Bernie wins the second choice vote...
and somehow Mayor Pete! wins the delegate vote.
How does that work? Can someone explain that to me?
"The enemy is anybody who is going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." Yossarian
"How does that work? Can someone explain that to me?"
That would require a measure of rational thought and veracity, absent from the voices reporting the count.
I wish I could tell you.
I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to unravel all that a few days ago and basically came up with squat. I think it's intentionally complex and I also think it's intentionally difficult to find the answer to your reasonable question. There are varying interpretations of how it all works and no two agree but it appears that SDEs (state delegates) do indeed determine the final national delegates that are awarded to individual candidates. And it seems that not all precincts are created equal so that x amount of votes in one precinct may not correlate with that same number of votes in another in regards to SDEs won. I know it makes no sense what so ever and as I said my quest for an answer was inconclusive and there are differing opinions so that may or may not be correct. But even if that's true and even if it's true that buttkeg got two more SDEs than Bernie, how the hell does a one tenth of one percent lead result in two more national delegates?
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
I agree. I think it is just more cheating. I am surmising that
the bogus pretense for this is that some precincts are allocated more delegates than others. So winning in cetain precincts will get you more delegates than in others. In addition to that there are the flim-flam coin tosses. It doesn't pass the smell test though because these effects should have been somewhat random in both directions. Like little robots the precincts were encouraged to cheat Bernie and they did. So all of the bias is in one direction. That's is why I know it is due to cheating.
Iowa=3 card monte
It is set up to look like a legit game but it is entirely controlled by the dealer, and the dealer will unilaterally decide who wins each hand.
They don't have to care what we think.
Therefore anything they do is A-OK.
They are a private corporation, they make their own rules to suit their own needs, and we can suck it.
That was their defense in court.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Testify...
my brother.
Morning JtC
Thanks for giving me a place to express my frustrations brother!
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Two things to inspire hope
1) Spread this far and wide:
Open Letter to the DNC: You Cheat, We Bust
Key passage:
Also Caitlin Johnstone:
*** and ***
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Thanks for those, Cassiodorus n/t
Caitlin is spot on
If the democrats blatantly steal the primary from Bernie it would just wake more people up to the fact of what they really stand for and especially if they allow Bloomberg a republican to lead the party just because they don't want Bernie to. This will show how desperate they are to hold on to their power.
So go ahead Perez and do it and you will be known for the DNC chairman that split the DP in two. We double dawg dare you to take this risk. There were 100 million people who sat out last election and just imagine what would happen if they worked on getting a third party up and running next election.
Fair warning democrats!
Thanks
Signed it, took me about 15 seconds. They've taken us for granted for far too long, time to put an end that.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
I said it before
Before any new party can arise to replace the dems a serious attempt to reform the dems must be made.
That's what is now happening.
Yep. Sure seems like
at least a fair start is being made to force the party establishment out of their reflexive corporate centrist thinking. There is good hope, but the process can't be done overnight.
And starting a new 3d party -- who would lead it and fund it?
I do know that the Trump campaign would be eager to encourage a 3d party effort from the left this cycle. Guaranteed re-election.
The Republicans don't need third parties
to accept gifts from the Democrats. Under Obama the Democrats gave them all branches of the Federal government and 900-plus state legislative seats. No third party was around to facilitate this giveaway, and it was a giveaway, because nothing so amazingly record-breaking would happen like this on its own. No Democrat so much as batted an eyelash at this development. Meanwhile Obama was busy bankrupting the DNC so the Clinton gang could take it over in exchange for assuming its debts.
As for actual third parties that people would dare to vote for, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) took more votes away from Trump in 2016 than Jill Stein (Green) took away from Clinton. Only the Democrats panic at this state of affairs.
The Democrats are a Vichy party, there to give people the impression that there's a real alternative to the Republicans. They can say anything they want as long as they don't defend themselves in any adequate manner when push comes to shove. Their top leadership desperately wants a Trump victory in November.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
The leftish 3d party
this cycle would be encouraged by the Trump Party (formerly the GOP) in order to put Donald over the top for another 4 yrs. Has nothing to do with flaws and weaknesses in the DP, which we are all aware of.
Donald wants a clean win this time, no back door EC win. A well-funded (largely by the Rs) leftish 3d party headed by a good enough frontman/woman, leader TBD, would if done right draw away enough soft Ds and D-leaning Indies to enable a clean Trump win.
Btw, I doubt if this year's weak, unimpressive GP nominee -- whose name I've forgotten -- will matter as to the final outcome for Dem vs Trump.
As for 2016, I've argued here before that the Libertarian Pty, consisting of two mod-lib and very anti-Trump Rs, would have drawn as many from the leftish indie/D side as the R, and probably more from the left, especially as a) Hillary the centrist hawkish Dem was unpopular and b) was expected to win easily over DT so a vote for the Libertarians was a freebie. But if you have a cite with statistics to contradict this, I'd be happy to consider it.
Assuming of course
that the Dem nominee wants to win. Not all of them want to win; most of them are just there to keep the nomination away from Bernie Sanders.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Nah, too cynical for me.
The DNC and MSM want to keep the nom away from Bernie, true. But they appear to be trying to deal with the situation at hand. And as for the actual contestants, I think if they weren't mostly legit, there would be more of them, arranged thru the offices of the DNC, leaning more ideologically in Bernie's direction in order to dilute his support. And candidates like Kamala, Corey, Julian and Beto would have been given much more covert party support and direction to drift a tad leftward in order to keep them in play longer into the process to dilute Bernie's delegate count.
As it turned out, among the viable, only Liz came close on policy, but a few months ago she stopped her leftward drift and began courting the establishment. Bad idea. She lost whatever authenticity she might have been building, and became another slick pol.
Most of these are in it not to stop Bernie but to achieve on the merits the big prize in their field -- or to buy it as billionaire businessmen like Steyer and Bloomie intend to do.
Yes, let's assume pleasant things
about those who want America ruled by a rich few, for profit.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
It's not really about whether or not it would be OK
to start/support a third party, or whether that would put us (more?) in the hands of the Big Bad Guys.
We're past that.
The Democrats are revealing themselves as an organization that sells the illusion of political representation. In other words, they are revealing that either they are a rogue organization that needs to be shut down immediately, or that we do not currently live in a country where our voices count: that, in fact, we are having our political future dictated to us from above.
Now, if you're a right-winger, this is a fairly comfortable place to live. It just proves that anyone left of center is evil and you can turn to the Republican party to make everything OK.
However, those of us who remember, unlike many Republicans, Michelle Obama, and Ellen DeGeneres, that the Republicans only got George W. Bush in office via racist election fraud (twice)--we live in a much less comfortable world. Anybody who understands the two Bush administrations at all knows that the Republican party is also selling the illusion of political representation, and is just as corrupt as the Democratic party. In fact, one could easily argue that the Republican party pioneered this current system of filth and lies, and went to a great deal of trouble and expense to achieve it.
I'd argue that under the current political circumstances, the spoiler question is essentially meaningless. The idea of siphoning off votes from a lesser-evil candidate makes no sense when you inhabit a rigged system. If the system can siphon votes from Sanders and give them to Steyer, Deval Patrick, or Buttigieg, then they can siphon votes from the Big Bad Right-Wing Guy of the Moment and prevent us from falling into the hands of the greater evil. Those in the media and party leadership who constantly flog this issue are in a position to make sure that any Big Bad Existential Right-Wing Threat *doesn't* end up taking power. And when I say "party leadership" I mean the leadership of both of the two big parties.
The spoiler argument is a way of blaming or fearing voters. You don't get to blame or fear voters in a rigged electoral system.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Really?
I'd like to know how they all plan to reform the Democratic Party, or even merely to expose its Vichy identity. Already I'm seeing missed opportunities. How is this Buttigieg social climber being exposed for what he is? Do people listen to his word salad, clap politely, and tell the pollsters they think he's a wonderful uniter? And Bloomberg? He and Trump are going to be in a competition for most anti-human. People will praise him to the skies anyway so they can pay some small portion of the rent, because that's what he's paying them to do. Biden tops the polls in South Carolina thanks to people who for some reason feel comfortable with a President with initial-stage dementia.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Lots of people are seeing through Wall Street Pete
and his word salads. Saagar rolled Pete on this.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtRRT6Qt_w&list=TLPQMTAwMjIwMjD9D2N5fu5...
Listening to him speak I hear a lot of words that sound great, but he never explains how he will do them. What I am seeing in him is a rePete of Obama's Yes We Can
Notcampaign. Lots of great words were thrown at us and I ate them up only to find out that they were just that. Words.Apologizes if this has been posted. Haven't made it through the comments.
The woman in your video said:
that Pete Buttigieg's support came from white, well-educated liberals. If such people are truly educated that's got to be a really hard strike against America's education systems, K-12 and collegiate. We are producing idiots.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus Have to wonder
Have to wonder how these women define "highly educated" and "liberal." Detailed questionnaires would more likely reveal that their mid/upper income, with secure income and health insurance, and have traded in their 2016 goal of electing the first woman POTUS to just defeating Trump. Of course that begs the question of how they think Mayo Pete could possibly defeat Trump. Or perhaps they didn't watch Trump pick off all the GOP empty suits in 2016.
Yep, Caitlin's on it and so is
The Hill's Rising
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkjQYQmNCa8]
btw, Love Rising, but not so much The Hill.
It feels like some kind of majority is coalescing around Bernie, but it's guaranteed that the Democratic Party and the oligarchs it serves will do everything they can to defeat him. And us.
No trust, no second (third? fourth? fifth?) chance for the DNC.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Yep, I'm burnt out too (on the vote blue no matter who thing)...
I'm with Matt Bruenig and others. If you want to defeat Trump, give me someone to vote *for* in the general. If you give me another neoliberal, that's on you.
So you can't explain the "delegate count"?
Is there anyone here who can explain it?
"The enemy is anybody who is going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." Yossarian
If your comment was meant for me Situational Lefty,
then my answer is, ‘yes you’re right, I can’t explain it.’ There is something in your question and response that feels a little disingenuous to me. Maybe you can explain yourself further? If I’m being unfair then I’d like to know. Also, it’s probably possible to find the answer you’re looking for with some research.
@Situational Lefty My vague understanding is
My vague understanding is that areas (county or precinct or ??) are worth some number of delegates.
An extreme example:
If one person shows up but that area is worth 5 delegates that one vote is worth 5 delegates.
If 50 people show up for that same area then each vote is worth 1/10 of one delegate.
(I think the above explains the concept correctly but might be wrong in some details of application.)
Does that explain some of the discrepancy? I don't know but that is the rationalization that I've seen.
We know it does not explain all of the differences as Bernie's campaign has errors they want corrected.
Gah
So if I understand you correctly it’s like Iowa has its own little scale-model electoral college.
That is so, so wrong.
The question is, are the other caucus states run this way, or are they democracies?
"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush
Point is
They are all rigged for the benefit of the placeholders.
Peoples' will is secondary.
The facade is falling off.
Corporate control of people's needs.
question everything
Democratic nomination electoral college
Sort of. Only worse because the allocations by states aren't as predefined and static. Winner takes all primary states are less complicated, but even there their representation for the nomination get weighted by the results of the past three presidential elections in that state. Thus, in 2020 the IN and NC delegations carry more clout than AR and SC even as Trump will carry all four.
Imagine an electoral college just as it is, but with the addition that every member of Congress and every Governor also gets a vote.
The DNC changed
the primary process rules a couple years ago, and winner-takes-all was eliminated. Candidates have to reach 15% of the votes to be viable for delegates.
Conceivably however, there could be a winner-takes-all situation where in a large field on the ballot, only one candidate gets to 15%. That would be unfortunate, but them's the rules.
Dunno about your second point on the prior elections weighting and whether that is still in effect.
@wokkamile Oops -- my bad,
Oops -- my bad, winner takes all was eliminated decades ago with all the other reforms after 1968. (Should have said, back when there were winner takes all primaries, but back then there weren't many primaries.) Although for CA residents with a June primary, it never mattered from '76 through 2004; regardless of the CA results. However, full implementation of proportional delegates took a while to implement. Not sure McGovern would have won under later versions of the rules.
That weighting of the size of a state's delegation by recent presidential results is current. The superdelegates were initiated in 1982. (Not that it helped in '84 and '88.) As of this election cycle, superdelegates can't vote on the first ballot.
There were good reasons why the issue of political parties weren't included in the Constitution -- they appreciated that political parties are problematical and there aren't any good solutions for them. They punted hoping that political parties wouldn't emerge.
Rural areas in IA
tend to have greater clout in the ultimate delegate count than do urban areas. Much like the EC nationally. As this overview article explains.
A very complicated process, very poorly explained, if at all, by the MSM. Convoluted and unfair. The rural overemphasis of course disfavored Bernie. So there was rigging and bias built into the system apart from the app problems and the IDP party hack vote counting shenanigans.
@wokkamile Unfair? Maybe. Maybe
Unfair? Maybe. Maybe not.
It's certainly not one person, one vote.
There should be no expectation of "fair." 2016 should have removed any doubt of fairness. And, the complications seem to make it easier to manipulate the "results."
Yes, unfair,
when rural areas are overweighted in the delegate vote count compared to urban areas. It should be equal treatment, one person one vote, same delegate calculus regardless of where you live in the state.
Almost no one outside of the IDP knows of this unequal situation, thanks to the silence of the MSM, which is a major reason the Iowa cacti have been able to persist for election after election with push back only on the issue of the monochrome racial makeup of the state.
Hopefully this was Iowa's last caucus and the DNC, after getting rid of Tony Perez, will be forced to enact primary contest reforms.
This might help
'might'. I read that Iowa has counties that have high delegate counts than others so yeah it's kinda like the electoral college where some states have more delegates....
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2_cUYSYXs&list=TLPQMTAwMjIwMjD9D2N5fu5...
Everything is certainly above board. HAH!
As was mentioned in a previous post a Mayo Pete individual was hired By the Nevada Dem party to act as Nevada's voter protection director.
Here is the job description of her underlings.
https://nvdems.com/party/jobs/
It appears "Team Rat" and the Nevada dem party are all in for another Iowa shit show.
Anyone?...
Bueller? Beuller?...?
"The enemy is anybody who is going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." Yossarian
Some 'funny' word play passes my mind
"Vote blue no matter what" ... well, yes, if you are blue, in German it would translate into 'blau', which would mean you are drunk.
Well, can you imagine, we will all be drunk, while voting? If I vote, I guess I am sober, or I don't go to vote at all.
Looks like the DNC is 'besoffen'.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Nobody can explain the delegate count
Bernie Sanders won the initial vote, he won the second vote and somehow, Mayor Pete won the the third, "delegate" vote. It makes no sense to anyone with a functioning cortex.
"The enemy is anybody who is going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." Yossarian
If I remember
Last time around in NH, Berny squashed Clinton by double digit %. The response from the d establishment is Bernie and Clinton were awarded the same # of delegates, AND HER loss didn't matter because she had the superdelegates in the bag. So, why? Rules. Kinda like double secret probation.
In 2016 the IDP
didn't report out 1st and 2d round vote totals, only the SDE allocations, so actual preferences by caucus goers is unknown, afaik. In the end HRC got 2 more national convention delegates than Bernie even as the SDE margin for Hillary was about a tenth of a percent.
Issues back then of vote counting irregularities, sloppiness in the process witnessed by Des Moines Register observers, and a limited recanvass by the Bernie camp. Eerily similar mess to what happened this time. And I don't think some of that mess was by accident.
Deja Vu
This is exactly what's happening this time around, right down to the tenth of a percent.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Let's be reasonable.
What you are asking for in the way of reason does not exist in (red pill) reality. "Math Illiteracy" is a Real thing. It is not just some (blue pill) real thing. The political cognoscenti is heavily dominated by this class of disabled human beings.
So, as I have been given to understand, in this case the published algorithm is hopelessly flawed to the point that even the tabulators were required to transcribe even the most obvious arithmetic errors from the tally sheets onto the next level of reporting documents. These data then flowed up the "chain of 'command'" to be vomited out to the public as the distortion you have noted.
Remember the most important point: This all is a feature of, not a flaw in, the SOP Doc. And, we will all just have to live with that …
RIP
ack, folks, who feel blue, have no functioning cortex
[video:https://youtu.be/5yuO44w_pUc]
Don't worry, be happy. Get another girl. May be a red one, this time?
https://www.euronews.com/live
that fits too
[video:https://youtu.be/srqiYSpj_8U]
https://www.euronews.com/live
They broke my heart long ago.
This is why I am a "no party preference" voter. I choose who to vote for and IF to vote. Obummer broke my heart - that was the end of the dnc for me. Once they cheated Bernie in 2016, I knew I would never trust them again.
Up to their old tricks - they are so afraid of losing power. That seals the deal for me. Anyone who must hang onto power is on my list for things I eliminate from my life. People who need that power in their lives do not need it for good reasons, but usually for nefarious ones. It has borne out - look at America today - look at what these power-hungry people are willing to do.
This video, with Garland Nixon is very telling about what is going on. Watch the last 30 minutes or so. He explains what Bernie is doing and why he must work within the dnc. I now understand completely.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mryfl0OOXAM&feature=youtu.be]
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Broken hearts mend
The only hope is there is enough anger and the will to do something about it. The democrats will have to have their power in politics pried out of their cold dead hands.
If the d's are so angered by Jill Stein, Bernie Bros and Susan Sarandon then a real stab at a third party will push them over the edge. The prospect of pulling any percentage away from the d's in these 50/50 elections will eventually force them to deal. The d's are bullies to the left, full of rejection and anger, yet easily cowed in the face of republican criticism.
If the democrat's party were a person, a person that punched down on those weaker but sucked up to, bipartisanly, those that bullied them, what would that be called? and they wonder why we sometimes cheer on the republicans.
Not breaking my heart!
As far as I'm concerned, the DNC has shown us who they are, repeatedly. Much like the Trump administration taking the friendly face off the shitty policies that have been standard in the US, the DNC isn't trying to hide the corruption that's been there a long, long time. Everyday more people are waking up to it and are coming to the conclusion that the working within the DNC isn't going to work. That's the best I see coming of this primary farce.
(As a side note, I'd rather they do the cheating up front than what I think would be more damaging, let Sanders win and then kneecap him so they can say "see, we tried it your way and it failed." It doesn't make sense to me that people accept the DNC is cheating now but expect they would work with a President Sanders. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.)
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I agree up to a point
One things for sure, they won't want to work with him and will definitively try to block his agenda with every trick in the book but that may well be turn out to be their Waterloo. They've preached for years that the Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, like justice, affordable health care, decent living wages, etc.etc., meanwhile all the time working in the dark right alongside them to keep the status quo. Bernie's election will give him the bully pulpit which at the very minimum make it a lot more difficult for them to go against the principles them claim to stand for, especially without finally exposing their true nature.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Shine a light!
Totally agreed here. The thing that gives me hope is that we're reaching the point where the fix is becoming so obvious, TPTB can't suppress it and it can't be denied. It's like turning on a light and all the roaches scatter. It's getting harder to pretend we don't need to call the Orkin man. lol
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Perfect!
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
If I just would know, who the Orkin man would be .../nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
pest control company
Some folks hire them to come in and spray poison throughout their home to get rid of pests.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
lol, you are funny/nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
On a local level ...
some of us are the Orkin Man. Remember the old "Think Globally, Act Locally" call for action slogan. Turns out the whole act locally thing really works well but unfortunately the really good results tend to stay local. Too bad, so sad, but what's an Orkin Man to do?
RIP
what we Orkin women could do is spreading stinky stuff
that even DNC rat-fuckers can't inhale without collapsing and gasping.
I just try to not get a broken heart and halluzinate about a happy revolution.
/s
https://www.euronews.com/live
The only option?
[video:https://youtu.be/S94Bh3Qez9o?t=19]
Good point
to maintain their game
question everything
@burnt out I agree with your
I agree with your thoughts re the "Dem Waterloo". Even if that's all President Sanders accomplished, it would be a very positive thing for the USA.
If the D party can and will pick the candidate they want,
and they do not want Sanders, I see little reason to throw my heart and soul into this primary. Their method is cheating and rigging, they do not hide it, and there are no legal consequences which will result for them.
The value to all of this is to finally point us toward a new party, with party leaders we can easily identify: the Democrats and progressives most despised by the DNC.
As an example, I have not been on the Tulsi train, but given the hostility shown to her, she must necessarily be considered a true liberal.
I will have no problem at all voting Green in the general once again.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
And I'll have no problem
writing in Bernies name again in the general if he's not on the ticket, But in the meantime I see no reason to lay down and give them exactly what they want by staying home. I will absolutely be voting for him in the primary. If Bernie can deal with all the bullshit coming his way I think that's the very least I can do.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
I will vote in the primary.
I do not expect it to matter.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Expect the Tulsi train
to show up strong in NH.
Watch the DNC screw with that one too.
question everything
Tulsi train
How I wish. (Kicked in the few dollars I could spare to help keep her voice around a bit long in this election cycle.) Unfortunately, her NH poll numbers have been flat at around 5% +/-2 for months and that's far short of the 15% viability threshold. However, whatever the results, my best hope at this point is that she can continue on through at least NV and SC, and if others start dropping out, her voice will have a better chance to be heard by more people. whi
You don't have to throw your heart and soul into the primary
Just vote in the primary for Bernie. In open primaries, you don't even have to be a registered Democrat.
If he doesn't win the nomination, vote for whoever. Or don't vote.
You forgot New Hampshire.
NH uses paper ballots - which are then counted on the Accuvote system. Accuvote is from our great friend Diebold (ahem, Premier now, I think), so we can rest easy, right?
As far as I'm concerned, if the ballots aren't counted by hand in public, it's an illegitimate election. Period.
BTW, apparently NH runs audits - before the election. (sentinelsource.com)
"For the test, mock ballots for Feb. 11’s primary will be entered into the machine with every marking possible for how someone could vote. The machine tallies them up, and the results are compared with a manual count by all parties involved before being sent to the Secretary of State’s Office as an official record.
Little, the city’s longtime clerk, said the test results may surprise outside observers.
“It runs very smoothly,” she said. “If there ever is a discrepancy between the tabulator and a hand count, it’s our hand count that’s wrong.”"
... But do they run through enough ballots to catch fractional counting? Not that it matters. NH, just COUNT THE DAMNED BALLOTS. Dump the tabulators.
"Elections" what are they good for?
Elections are only purposeful in giving tptb a way for them to legitimize that ameriKa is a democracy, rather than the true fascist democKracy it truly has become.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
I can't even argue that.
OTOH, giving up doesn't seem like much of a solution either, and the point I'm trying to make is that our Bernie votes make it harder for them to hide their crookedness.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Didn't NH dump the paper ballots?
I think they are going with a brand new and untested app to run on Ipads and off we go to another debacle where no one knows what to do, how to do it or if the results are even going to accurate. It's one thing if they had been working on it for a year and it had been tested it's another to rig it right before their primary. It's just simply amazing how blatant they are this year.
I thought that was NV (Nevada)
not NH (New Hampshire).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Paper ballots
According to Politico New Hampshire use paper ballots except for disabled people who will use some kind of electronic voting machine. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/new-hampshire-wont-be-next-iowa...
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
After reading further though
There is some real concern about the websites that the local municipalities use to report their results. And this is pure stupidity
Ya have to wonder how many other states operate in similar circumstances.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
The Publicly Created Internet
… was, long ago, privatized, so what did you expect to happen.
We created an awesome system, so profiteers could (with the consent of the idiotic masses) hijack it and screw us all. Gotta love them fiscal conservatives and anti-government morons. Just gotta love that freeeee enterprise.
RIP
You are correct
Thanks for the correction.
Iowa Dem Caucus "math"
This is the fourth election cycle that I've observed the IA caucus and have yet to figure out how it works. Doesn't even seem to operate as it was supposed to work. (This was a piece of the Democratic presidential nominating reforms after the 1968 debacle(s), and overall reforms that created public financing of presidential elections and campaign donation limits.) Maybe it was corrupted from the get go and outsiders didn't take note because it was as insignificant as the NH primary. Until -- 2004?
The system or structure of the IA Democratic caucus -- intended by reformers to increase participatory democracy -- appears to have done the opposite. As they always have, the party wheelers and dealers do whatever the want, but instead of hiding in smoke-filled back rooms, they hide behind opaque "math." IDP never reported out the attendance number for each precinct because it's irrelevant. Allocation of "delegates" per precinct is done in advance (precincts can also come and go) -- probably by some inscrutable mathematical formulation. Thus, if precinct X get 10 delegates, it doesn't matter if 10, 100, 1000, etc. voters show up to caucus. What was supposed to matter is that actual people were selected at each precinct to represent the precinct results at the county convention and from those conventions reps were selected for the state convention. As such, converting precinct delegates to SDE skips the county caucus or convention step -- thus stripping the delegates (real people) of the itty-bitty authorization they were awarded in the precinct voting. #2
Thanks all
Appreciate everyones responses, Gramma and I are getting ready to head out to a local conservation area to mosey around with our cameras for awhile. Be back in a few.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
There's just one problem with all this:
What makes you think the DNC cares if they lose?
They're still on the gravy train, they still have their billionaire backers, they still get their money - and they don't have to do one Goddamned thing for it.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
They lose DC patronage if they lose the general
And without that power they lose money for their machinery.
Of course they don't want Bernie coz they know that he won't be their sugar daddy.
They are in between a rock and a hard place knowing they can't win without Bernie.
But enough of them have the hope that Clintons Inc / Bloomberg will save them until they can restore their hegemony.
They don't care about us
But they do care about losing elections. And that billionaire money train is exactly why they care. Keeping that money flowing is what it's all about for them and I can't see too many billionaires throwing their money at an ineffecive lost cause, which is what the DNC appears to be hell bent on becoming.
All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. John Lennon
Lost cause, lost caucus
The high stakes gamblers that own wall street
do not care red or blue
a few hundred mil either way makes no difference
long as the peeps believe there is a choice and
they don't have pitchforks for breakfast
question everything
Wouldn't surprise me
if the following is the result in NH:
1) Bernie ~ 28% (by 4-7 pts, depending on how much NHDP cheating for Boot is going on)
2) Bootajudge ~ 22% (who will again get the media headlines if he comes within 4 pts)
3) Klobbachair ~ 15% (late surge; close to delegate viability)
Below 15%:
4) Warren. -- fading continues; NH shows she is finished.
5) Biden. -- Dead Man Walking, will probably pony soldier on until SC where his lead will evaporate after NH as Bernie gets many of his defecting AA voters as voters no longer consider Joe as a frontrunner or electable. Biden will possibly continue on to SupTues, largely out of pride and to save face, but will get only a modest delegate take from inconsequential states.
Pages