Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 265: Nobody Likes Aquitter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Total Exonn Erase On
---

To start this topic off on a non-controversial note that will cause no debate whatsoever:

I like how Iowa handed all the 'its rigged against Bernie!' people a talking point on a silver, diamond-encrusted platter

I think it's more likely that the caucus issues were due to incompetence more than anything else, but STILL

---

A pretty good watch. https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1225480977318846469

---

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/elizabeth-warren-campaign-nevada-111595

---

KamikazePotato posted...

To start this topic off on a non-controversial note that will cause no debate whatsoever:

I like how Iowa handed all the 'its rigged against Bernie!' people a talking point on a silver, diamond-encrusted platter

I think it's more likely that the caucus issues were due to incompetence more than anything else, but STILL

There is zero chance the issues were caused by anything but incompetence

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There is zero chance the issues were caused by anything but incompetence

Yep.

As an Iowan I fully support making a group of states all primary on the same day to start. Put IA, NH, SC, NV all in one day or something.

---

Make Iowa last and force it to be a primary tbqh

The only alternative that'll make up for the gross incompetence is making it worth zero delegates in the next non-incumbent primary season

It's not the residents fault that the IDP is poorly run.

Punishing us for this is silly.

But most local news has been saying this will probably mean the end of our time as first so that is expected at this point.

---

3 new NH polls!

Sanders 24
Buttigieg 20
Biden 17
Warren 13

Sanders 25
Buttigieg 19
Biden 12
Warren 11

Sanders 31
Buttigieg 21
Biden 12
Warren 12

Sooooo...does a really bad NH performance mean Warren is out? Does she stick it out to Super Tuesday? I don't quite know how she expects to do anything if she gets beaten in Iowa and trounced in NH. Also how low is a "disastrous" performance for Biden?

---

I guess...if Warren can't win Iowa or NH, what states is she expected to win?

---

Sorry for all the posts, but 538 now has Sanders at 50% to win the nomination.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Biden down to 18%. Can't imagine NH will help him there. SC could really be make or break for Biden.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I guess...if Warren can't win Iowa or NH, what states is she expected to win?

She is likely to be strong in California, New York, Massachusetts, and most of the big blue states.

---

But I do agree a great performance for Buttigieg in Iowa and New Hampshire is worst for Warren. Biden is likely to keep most of his base of support in the red states, long after it's clear he isn't getting a majority of the delegates. Buttigieg had to come 1st or 2nd in Iowa/NH and it looks like he's on track to do so.

---

I would be feeling a lot better about Biden if it wasnt for Mike Bloomberg. Bernie is not going to be able to get all that many votes in the south, but if he only needs 25% or something to break even he can probably boost to that level from doing well in Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Sorry for all the posts, but 538 now has Sanders at 50% to win the nomination.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Biden down to 18%. Can't imagine NH will help him there. SC could really be make or break for Biden.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Sooooo...does a really bad NH performance mean Warren is out? Does she stick it out to Super Tuesday? I don't quite know how she expects to do anything if she gets beaten in Iowa and trounced in NH. Also how low is a "disastrous" performance for Biden?

Warren just announced a bunch of events in Texas so presumably she's gunning for a good Super Tuesday performance, but that seems optimistic. If she stays in she's probably banking on a contested convention.

A disasterous performance from Biden is "too low to get any delegates" (15%?). But I feel like he has a higher floor in the South and is going to come out alright between SC and Super Tuesday.

---

@Nelson_Mandela

Is Biden going to blow this even without a significant gaffe?
---

Quarantine up to 150 million as two more providences are added.

Government also giving orders to round people up in quarantine camps. Which was really the point of the "hospitals" made. From the NYT:

Sun Chunlan, a vice premier tasked with leading the central governments response to the outbreak that is centered in Wuhan, said city investigators should go to each home to check the temperatures of every resident and interview infected patients close contacts.

Set up a 24-hour duty system. During these wartime conditions, there must be no deserters, or they will be nailed to the pillar of historical shame forever, Ms. Sun said.

These are basically death camps. Understaffed, lacking power. And the language is just lovely. "Wartime conditions." Though I suppose when you've just announced a quarantine of 10% of your population it would be.

---

Warren is definitely staying until at least Super Tuesday. Only reason not to would be if she drops into single digits in two of the next three states. I'd argue Biden would have a better chance at dropping should he fail to get at least a close second place in South Carolina. Sanders and Buttigieg are obviously staying as will Bloomberg. Steyer might stay if he gets a good performance in South Carolina. Everyone else will likely drop after New Hampshire except maybe Klobuchar and Yang who may give Nevada a try before bowing out

---

There's no way in hell Biden's dropping out before Super Tuesday

---

I'm too lazy to do the research, so someone tell me if it's true that 4chan aided in the Iowa craziness by flooding the phone lines being used to report results on Tuesday.

Because if we literally let 4chan dick with elections in whatever small way, just think what state sponsored agents could actually do.

(Also expect Yang to drop out soonish to endorse Bernie, is my hot predix)

---

FFDragon posted...

I'm too lazy to do the research, so someone tell me if it's true that 4chan aided in the Iowa craziness by flooding the phone lines being used to report results on Tuesday.

Yup


---

Yup

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/clog-lines-iowa-caucus-hotline-posted-online-encouragement-disrupt-results-n1131521

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There's no way in hell Biden's dropping out before Super Tuesday

Not saying it was likely, just more likely than Warren.

He could end up being another JEB! If he gets another fourth place in New Hampshire, people may start jumping ship.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Quarantine up to 150 million as two more providences are added.

Government also giving orders to round people up in quarantine camps. Which was really the point of the "hospitals" made. From the NYT:

These are basically death camps. Understaffed, lacking power. And the language is just lovely. "Wartime conditions." Though I suppose when you've just announced a quarantine of 10% of your population it would be.

You see the videos of them welding people's doors shut from the outside to keep them inside.

---

if we're wondering when people are dropping I mean the #1 question gotta be Klobuchar

and then I wonder what happens when she does......... which I wasn't expecting to care about but given how she nearly evened up to Biden in Iowa, her share has actually gotten pretty significant now

---

Thread on Treasury voluntarily assisting Senate Rs weaponized "investigation" of Hunter Biden, previously having refused to cooperate with Congress on impeachment or with Trump's tax returns:

https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1225558138998415363

---

Yup, literally boxing you inside to force quarantine. There's also vids out of the van coming by with a giant cube to put people inside.
Government ain't playing on it and the mask is starting to fall a bit. I

If you're unaware of what a Vice Premier is, they're directly under the Premier, aka, prime minister. Meaning that's one of the high ranking officials in charge calling for door to door checks and called it wartime conditions. Hell of a flu!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Thread on Treasury voluntarily assisting Senate Rs weaponized "investigation" of Hunter Biden, previously having refused to cooperate with Congress on impeachment or with Trump's tax returns:

https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1225558138998415363

Didn't the Democrats argue for years that Congress was entitled to get anyone's tax return? Seems like they should be estopped from complaining now.

---

CNN gonna CNN

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1225511709936431104

---

CNN doctor said the virus will die in the summer. I guess we will find out.

---

Grimlyn posted...

if we're wondering when people are dropping I mean the #1 question gotta be Klobuchar

and then I wonder what happens when she does......... which I wasn't expecting to care about but given how she nearly evened up to Biden in Iowa, her share has actually gotten pretty significant now

If you're a progressive I think you hope everyone stays into Super Tuesday to split up the moderates.

Also slipped my mind really but on the subject of Warren "losing" Iowa... she didnt really? She got 5 delegates by the last count I saw and Biden is gonna get 0 or 1. She'd be dumb to drop out because she can spin the hell out of that and try to take votes from other candidates. Unfortunately the Iowa shitshow is distracting everyone which only benefits Biden.

---

Corrik7 posted...

CNN doctor said the virus will die in the summer. I guess we will find out.

human extinction guaranteed

---

SmartMuffin posted...

human extinction guaranteed

I feel like Madagascar has already shut down everything.

---

Corrik7 posted...

CNN doctor said the virus will die in the summer. I guess we will find out.

Shit.
We're fucked.


---

Cernovich was a Pizzagater, I think we can do without his opinion on literally anything

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Cernovich was a Pizzagater, I think we can do without his opinion on literally anything

its not his opinion, hes literally just quoting CNN

---

Something I heard throughout the impeachment trial from Republicans that didn't get much push back was that the Mueller report proved that the Russian collusion was a hoax. However, my understanding of the conclusions from the Mueller report was that wasn't true.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be because I never poured over the Mueller report, the conclusion was that there was no direct evidence of collusion, but there is still uncertainty due potential obstruction of justice and that there IS evidence that the Trump campaign was welcoming of Russian influence. Mueller didn't make a determination of guilt or crime because a sitting President cannot be charged and instead left it up to Congress to make that decision (which being Republican controlled had no chance of happening). Mueller definitively said, however, that he in no way exonerated Trump.

Did I get that all straight? And if so, why was there little push back when this claim was repeatedly made?

---

ZaziGuado posted...

Something I heard throughout the impeachment trial from Republicans that didn't get much push back was that the Mueller report proved that the Russian collusion was a hoax. However, my understanding of the conclusions from the Mueller report was that wasn't true.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be because I never poured over the Mueller report, the conclusion was that there was no direct evidence of collusion, but there is still uncertainty due potential obstruction of justice and that there IS evidence that the Trump campaign was welcoming of Russian influence. Mueller didn't make a determination of guilt or crime because a sitting President cannot be charged and instead left it up to Congress to make that decision (which being Republican controlled had no chance of happening). Mueller definitively said, however, that he in no way exonerated Trump.

Did I get that all straight? And if so, why was there little push back when this claim was repeatedly made?

Yes, youre correct

I assume they decided not to push back because they didnt want to derail the conversation from the clear evidence of Trumps wrongdoing in Ukraine, but the media (and to a lesser extent Dems) dropped the ball by not making it clear to the public how Trump was not exonerated by Mueller at all.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-ellen-moon/index.html

Okay

---

People disagreed.

But how does one push back exactly? Can't just go interrupt a fox news session if you're not invited

---

ZaziGuado posted...

Something I heard throughout the impeachment trial from Republicans that didn't get much push back was that the Mueller report proved that the Russian collusion was a hoax. However, my understanding of the conclusions from the Mueller report was that wasn't true.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be because I never poured over the Mueller report, the conclusion was that there was no direct evidence of collusion, but there is still uncertainty due potential obstruction of justice and that there IS evidence that the Trump campaign was welcoming of Russian influence. Mueller didn't make a determination of guilt or crime because a sitting President cannot be charged and instead left it up to Congress to make that decision (which being Republican controlled had no chance of happening). Mueller definitively said, however, that he in no way exonerated Trump.

Did I get that all straight? And if so, why was there little push back when this claim was repeatedly made?

Yes, you are correct. Basically, Mueller concluded that he did not have the authority to charge the President and therefore, as a responsible, ethical, prosecutor he refused to issue an opinion one way or the other on that issue.

The Democrats sort of set themselves up for this though. They framed the Mueller investigation as an investigation of Trump for years, until the public thought that that is what it was. But Mueller never said that Trump was a target of his investigation, which did charge many other people.

Now, if a person is a target of an investigation, the prosecutor basically never will conclude that the person is innocent. They conclude that they do not have the evidence to convict and therefore do not file charges. Thus, if Mueller was actually investigating Trump, and followed usual protocol, his language of saying he cannot conclude that Trump committed any wrongdoing is the same as a prosecutor would use to "exonerate" someone. Legally there's no difference between the two coming from a prosecutor, since a prosecutor lacks the power of a trial jury to find someone permanently not guilty even if new evidence arises later.

So when Mueller came out with his report, the Democrats should have been prepared and said that he didn't conclude anything about Trump because he lacked the authority to do so. They did try, but they couldn't credibly do it because they had spent the previous 2 years talking about how Mueller was investigating Trump.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-ellen-moon/index.html

Okay

Holy shit does Hillary hate Sanders. Is this supposed to be reverse psychology?

---

Also, the idea of a special counsel subordinate to the President investigating the President was fatally flawed from the outset. What they needed was an independent counsel who reported to Congress, not the President.

---

banananor posted...

Holy shit does Hillary hate Sanders. Is this supposed to be reverse psychology?

As opposed to Hillary who promised to take people's jobs away and give them nothing. Because that was an amazingly effective campaign strategy for her.

---

banananor posted...

Holy shit does Hillary hate Sanders. Is this supposed to be reverse psychology?

Either Hillary is an all out idiot or she really, really wants Sanders to win.

---

Hillary believes she is very smart when really, she just married the most gifted politician of his generation. Then if all those rumors are true, she ignored his advice in the 2016 election and lost.

---

Hillary is very smart

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Hillary is very smart

Yet she lost to Donald Trump. That means that only the following two possibilities are possible:

1. Both DJT and HRC are very smart, and DJT is smarter.
2. DJT is very smart, and HRC is not, and DJT intentionally won by a small margin so as to maximize power amongst the winners (fewer people in the coalition means each person gets a bigger slice of the pie).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Hillary is very smart

Shes knowledgeable, but her pride, or whatever, has made her say and do things that a very stupid person would.

---