• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 585 39.2%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 853 57.2%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 24 1.6%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 7 0.5%
  • THE KLOBBERER

    Votes: 16 1.1%
  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 6 0.4%

  • Total voters
    1,491
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,816
I mean it's translating to real life.





Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I didn't stay up all night cramming for the purity tests to have them lower the bar of admission after I got in.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,163
I followed the Iowa caucus closely and I think that was a bad idea, shit drove my anxiety out of control, especially once it became obvious the information was being delayed.

On Tuesday I might just get tacos and beer with friends and tune it out and hopefully come home to good news.
 

Ionic

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,734
I followed the Iowa caucus closely and I think that was a bad idea, shit drove my anxiety out of control, especially once it became obvious the information was being delayed.

On Tuesday I might just get tacos and beer with friends and tune it out and hopefully come home to good news.

Thankfully, a primary should be far simpler than a caucus and we won't have to wait indefinitely for nebulous results.

...

I'm setting myself up to be completely flabbergasted on Tuesday aren't I?
 

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,836
Pete is getting hit hard online
That's just a preview of what anyone but Bernie is expecting in the Fall.
that's terrifying.
There's still a HUGE chance it's not bernie come June.
Lmao
When you have shitty people like Pete running, people are going to call them out.

I also hope you are going to call out Chris Matthews and the other pundits for smearing and fear mongering Bernie as a "socialist"

Pundits better chill out and stop doing republicans work for them.
fixed
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,185
"Wall St Pete" definitely rolls off the tongue more easily than "Ratfuck Pete"

warren isn't really a "former republican"
Y'all need to pick your battles.
Warren was registered as a Republican from 1991 to 1996. She voted Republican for many years. "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets", she has said
 

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,836
I mean it's translating to real life.





Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.

I'm shaken by the utter toxicity at display here by these Bernie bros. That poor, powerless man is just trying to sell you his vision of America and they are stepping on his freedom of speech. #Justice4Pete

smh at what Bernie has done to our #civil political discourse in which we can work across the aisle and respect each other's viewpoints.
 

fauxtrot

Member
Oct 25, 2017
454
Trump effect, only thing missing is some stupid tweet.

If you're unhappy about the "Wall Street Pete" chant, maybe you should prepare yourself for what else he gets rightfully called out for. Shitty candidates are going to get called out for their shitty policies, positions and pasts.

I'll link this "stupid tweet"... read the entire tweet thread if you want to learn more about Pete:

 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,141
Problem with Pete is you don't know what you are getting. Not only do I think he is the worse to go against Trump of the top 5, I don't think he would really advocate for even his public option. You have to select someone that you know will fight as hard as they can to get it through. Besides Bernie going for M4A (A long fight), Biden and Warren are the other two I trust to go heard for the public options. Biden sees it as an advancement from the ACA and Warren knows that the system needs to be more attainable for people.
 

Deleted member 2834

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,620
Pete is getting hit hard online
That's just a preview of what anyone but Bernie is expecting in the Fall.
that's terrifying.
There's still a HUGE chance it's not bernie come June.
The internet better chill out and stop doing republicans work for them.
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
 

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,836
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
Almost as if people are sick of the status quo and will criticize candidates who seek to continue business as usual.
 

Zeroro

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,406
Wall Street Pete's also a pretty apt descriptor considering he's literally got a former Goldman Sachs executive and lobbyist as his national policy director. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Brinbe

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
58,292
Terana
mayor pete playing the swarmy heel to absolute perfection. that was some mega heat lol. wall street pete is perfect

also i miss 2008

This. Fucking. Election.

Tired of this fucking election, empty promises & never ending processes. Relax for a minute or two
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,233
The GOP isn't the only problem we're facing, we have the Neo Liberals that have been running this country for decades.

Biden, Kamala, Hillery and Pete are part of the problem that got us Bush and Trump by voting bipartisan and doing harm for us.


We can all cheer for Nancy ripping the SOTUS but has she addressed the homeless rate in San Francesco?


People are just sick of these politicians
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,452
Sweden
f your candidate is getting called out, maybe consider the problem could be the candidate rather than the people bringing attention to their problems

i'm getting powerful "no it's the children who are wrong" energy from some of these posts
 

Deleted member 5596

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,747
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.

*Reads about Pete*

Totally deserved

Paraphrasing something I saw on an opinion piece about him:

When I look at Pete, I see the face of America's rotten sham meritocracy, and I know I am not alone.
 

Deleted member 176

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
37,160
I mean it's translating to real life.





Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.

Wall Street Pete is really good. We've been hearing for a while about how x candidate isn't vetted or would lose to Trump, but the past 48 hours show this is especially the case with Pete. It feels like every hour since the debate there's been a new story about something awful or weird he's done, and now he has a good nickname. Imagine what Trump and his fan-base could do with "Wall Street Pete".
 

Tracygill

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
1,853
The Left
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
These leftist are attacking candidates that represent the billionaire class that have been waging a war against the working class, killing tens of thousands every year by denying them healthcare, terrorizing millions using police and are literally destroying the only habitable planet that humans have access to.

What's insane is how restrained these attacks have been considering what is at stake.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
19,729
These leftist are attacking candidates that represent the billionaire class that have been waging a war against the working class, killing tens of thousands every year by denying them healthcare, terrorizing millions using police and are literally destroying the only habitable planet that humans have access to.

What's insane is how restrained these attacks have been considering what is at stake.

I mean, I'd buy that if they didn't also toss that vitriol at Warren, who certainly isn't any of those things. So weird!
 

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,836

I had no idea Cornel West and Pete went so far back. It says something when even a family friend doesn't want to support your ass.
 

Zelas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,020
I don't disagree with Turner being a bad choice from traditional political perspectives, but like I said in my original post, sanders is an ideologue. you're crazy if you think he'll for a second weight political expedience over policy for the first time in his life. you fundamentally dont understand who bernie sanders is if you disagree with this
Bernie on guns says otherwise.
 

Deleted member 82

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,626
Hey good morning I hate this thanks.

Let me get this straight (assuming this is all true): they delayed the final results under the pretense that they wanted to examine inconsistencies and correct errors first, but now they're saying they won't adjust the results for the corrected data anyway. Am I right?

Honestly, I don't even care to draw a distinction between incompetence, corruption, bias and conspiracy anymore. Whatever this is, it's a complete clusterfuck that allows false narratives about who won to continue, and makes the entire party look like buffoons who can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. It's unacceptable.
 

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,711
United States
Let me get this straight (assuming this is all true): they delayed the final results under the pretense that they wanted to examine inconsistencies and correct errors first, but now they're saying they won't adjust the results for the corrected data anyway. Am I right?

Honestly, I don't even care to draw a distinction between incompetence, corruption, bias and conspiracy anymore. Whatever this is, it's a complete clusterfuck that allows false narratives about who won to continue, and makes the entire party look like buffoons who can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. It's unacceptable.
What doesn't add up is that they say they're taking until Monday to correct errors as reported by campaigns but according to this internal e-mail they can't/won't correct the errors. Is it because the guy reporting them doesn't represent a campaign?

This is all so braindead.
 
OP
OP
Poodlestrike

Poodlestrike

Smooth vs. Crunchy
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
13,496
Let me get this straight (assuming this is all true): they delayed the final results under the pretense that they wanted to examine inconsistencies and correct errors first, but now they're saying they won't adjust the results for the corrected data anyway. Am I right?

Honestly, I don't even care to draw a distinction between incompetence, corruption, bias and conspiracy anymore. Whatever this is, it's a complete clusterfuck that allows false narratives about who won to continue, and makes the entire party look like buffoons who can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. It's unacceptable.
What doesn't add up is that they say they're taking until Monday to correct errors as reported by campaigns but according to this internal e-mail they can't/won't correct the errors. Is it because the guy reporting them doesn't represent a campaign?

This is all so braindead.
So, my understanding is that it's like this:

They cannot, legally, change the caucus results as tabulated by the precinct captains absent a full recanvass. They asked for inconsistencies to ensure that their transcription of those results was without error, but they cannot alter the reported totals. Even to fix the math. This is because the Iowa Caucuses are an insane system designed by crazy people more than it is corruption, bias, conspiracy, or even incompetence in this specific case. As far as I know, that rule predates even the notion of anybody currently in the race running for president aside from maybe Joe Biden because damn he's been doing it for a while. The math is bad because caucuses are mostly entirely run by volunteers to keep the costs down. Guarantee you that even aside from the tabulation errors, there's a lot of places out there that just didn't run the process right in the first place. I've seen reports of people leaving without submitting their cards to their voters weren't counted, precincts where they didn't even do the second alignment, ones where they let people from groups that passed the 15% threshold switch around 'cause that's actually a new rule... there are errors all up and down this thing.

Basically the Iowa Caucuses have always been bad, and it's just now that people outside of political nerds are seeing that. Should just toss caucuses into the sea. We got rid of most of them after 2016 (ty Perez) but ofc of the 3 remaining, 2 are in the first 4 states, and one went first.
 

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,711
United States
So, my understanding is that it's like this:

They cannot, legally, change the caucus results as tabulated by the precinct captains absent a full recanvass. They asked for inconsistencies to ensure that their transcription of those results was without error, but they cannot alter the reported totals. Even to fix the math. This is because the Iowa Caucuses are an insane system designed by crazy people more than it is corruption, bias, conspiracy, or even incompetence in this specific case. As far as I know, that rule predates even the notion of anybody currently in the race running for president aside from maybe Joe Biden because damn he's been doing it for a while. The math is bad because caucuses are mostly entirely run by volunteers to keep the costs down. Guarantee you that even aside from the tabulation errors, there's a lot of places out there that just didn't run the process right in the first place. I've seen reports of people leaving without submitting their cards to their voters weren't counted, precincts where they didn't even do the second alignment, ones where they let people from groups that passed the 15% threshold switch around 'cause that's actually a new rule... there are errors all up and down this thing.

Basically the Iowa Caucuses have always been bad, and it's just now that people outside of political nerds are seeing that. Should just toss caucuses into the sea. We got rid of most of them after 2016 (ty Perez) but ofc of the 3 remaining, 2 are in the first 4 states, and one went first.
So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?

So unless someone asks for a recount, the errors are canon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.