Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter.

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice.
— creativesoul

Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter. — Xtrix

She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.

It could be that both use(d) the phrase...

Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend.

Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc.

I imagine he'll have quite a bit to say about the impeachment of Trump after the matter is officially closed/settled.

Well, the Iowa caucus was a gong show. The DNC has been preparing for years for this moment. It’s now a dumpster fire. I wonder if they’ll blame the Russians.

Imagine thinking that receiving the endorsement of the union representing the third largest employer in the country isn't important or noteworthy. — Maw

And there are multiple far larger trade unions in the US. If Bernie would get an endorsement from NEA (National Education Association), a 2,9 million union, that would represent far more people than the US Postal Office.

But that wasn't my point. My point (even if a bit off the topic) is that the labor unions are small midget size oddities in the US. And when there isn't large union representation (and they don't have to be leftist, thank God) to take on the employers, then the employers have the field day to do whatever they want...and have just done that. Then people complain that wages are stagnant and managers earn so much more than the average employee.

Perhaps it's a tight race without any "official candidate vs others", so they really have to count the votes.

What's that saying about 'not being able to organise an orgy in a brothel?' :sad:

But that wasn't my point. My point (even if a bit off the topic) is that the labor unions are small midget size oddities in the US. And when there isn't large union representation (and they don't have to be leftist, thank God) to take on the employers, then the employers have the field day to do whatever they want...and have just done that. Then people complain that wages are stagnant and managers earn so much more than the average employee. — ssu

Yeah union and worker power isn't strong in America, that's why it's important to build a mass movement to organize, support, and strengthen worker power (among other things), which is precisely why it's notable that one of the largest unions in the country is backing the most pro-worker candidate.

She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.

It could be that both use(d) the phrase...

Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend. — creativesoul

There were many people using that phrase. I've been using it for 20 years. It's irrelevant. I doubt Donald Trump was listening to Warren. We're talking about the 2016 election. When Bernie generated massive crowds and enthusiasm, Trump noticed and took some of his rhetoric. That's fairly obvious.

You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous.

Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc. — creativesoul

True, but he particularly uses the term regarding the economy.

You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous. — Xtrix

Funny. I do not remember saying that. Never would, in fact.

:up:

Dems spend months chasing Trump for corruptly influencing elections and then suddenly when Bernie is about to take Iowa the final poll disappears and then the results disappear and they end up looking twice as corrupt as the Don. Good work :ok:

Well, the Iowa caucus was a gong show. The DNC has been preparing for years for this moment. It’s now a dumpster fire. I wonder if they’ll blame the Russians. — NOS4A2

They are denying any outside interference problems... currently anyway.

...when Bernie is about to take Iowa the final poll disappears.. — Baden

Was there an ongoing accurate tally to support this?

Curious. I really do not know. Sarcasm?

The final poll means the poll the night before the caucus that disappeared. He was ahead in the average of other polls.

The DNC refused to have their new caucus app vetted by the department of homeland security. Sounds about right.

Yeah, you did:

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.
— creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system."
— Xtrix

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

I don't know how this can be interpreted in any other way given the context, short of you irrelevantly pointing out that Warren also used the phrase -- but I don't know why you would do that. Or, perhaps, you're truly unsure that Bernie used that phrase during the '16 election? If that's the case, fine -- but then it kind of undermines your credibility, despite your general thesis being an accurate one.

...when Bernie is about to take Iowa the final poll disappears.. — Baden

Was there an ongoing accurate tally to support this? — creativesoul

According to Wikipedia, the preliminary results from the 2% of precincts that started reporting before the whole thing got shut down were showing Bernie in the lead, followed by Warren and Buttgeiger.

They'll pull it together eventually. Lots of higher math probably.

Let's not buy into conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence to support such claims.

As silly as it is that Iowa is the first state to caucus, and that they can't seem to pull off the ONE thing they should have made fool-proof, making unsubstantiated, from-the-gut conspiratorial accusations makes us look like the Trump crowd.

Let's not buy into conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence to support such claims. — Xtrix

Nobody said the conspiracy theory was true. I made a point about what it looked like. Which is what matters.

DNC has now a history of problems with electronic devices & systems. Now it's like really hilarious.

How out-off-tech can a political party become? If there would be class on the subject in the school below for the DNC organization:

Wall Street Journal: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
NY Times: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
Washington Post: Buttigieg 26.9% and in the lead.

All with 62% of precincts reporting.

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but boy is it irritating.

The reason is Sanders is ahead in the popular vote and Buttigieg in delegates.

OK...but why don't the delegates line up with the votes?

Do they ever? Call it a mini electoral college. You can win the popular vote and lose the election.

Is this accounting for any superdelegates yet? Are they still a thing?

God bless our straightforward and democratic elections.

Lol.



No, the DNC is holding them back to further screw Bernie when necessary.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083

It starting to look like the conspiracy theory is the idea that the DNC would not do anything short of planting a bomb on Bernie's bus to stop the guy winning.

Anyway, whatever. It all gets old quickly. 'Night.

I think there's definitely a bias against Bernie, beyond question. But the way they have (and continue) to screw him has been "subtle" in the media, or at least more so than rigging election results. The superdelegate rule, remember, was changed because of Bernie. We can't have it both ways. But your point is taken regardless. Playing Devil's advocate a bit today.