Nevada Dem Party Hires Buttigieg Staffer, SCRUBS Work History

in hive-100421 •  2 months ago 

▶️ Watch on 3Speak


--The Nevada Democratic Party has hired a former Pete Buttigieg staffer to run "voter protection" ahead of the Nevada caucus on February 22, immediately sounding alarms and raising questions about impropriety on the heels of the Iowa caucus results

Is this appropriate?


▶️ 3Speak

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Wow wow! This is no retreat no surrender. But, clearly each party & caucus had their instincts. And the end justify the means.

Wow Wow! Dit is geen terugtocht, geen overgave. Maar het was duidelijk dat elke partij & caucus hun instinct had. En het doel heiligt de middelen

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

I agree that she isn't the person whose going to actually "do" anything behind the scenes but she would ultimately be the choice of communication between who is actually going to "do" something between his campaign and the DNC...because it would have to be a trusted and confidential line of communication. It does reek of the start of another planned intervention on behalf of Buttigieg since the Iowa caucus showed us exactly how they stacked the deck with his family owning and developing the app involved, many former Clinton people being hired to work for them and a former Obama lead campaign official being named the CEO of that company last September. Until the laws are changed that forbid family members from being directly involved in the actually election day processes in any whether personally or via companies used this type of activity will continue to happen. I find it rather odd as I was looking the other day at our state's requirements to be an election worker and they gave a list of questions you will be asked, one being do you work on behalf of a candidate (employment or voluntary), are you related to a candidate, are you affiliated with any companies that are involved in the election process (similar question along that line) (what they meant are producing any materials or other equipment that will be used), it also stated that you could be a campaign member or family member of a candidate but you could not work/volunteer to work in the districts they were running in on election day.

I don't know if I had to guess I'd think New Hampshire is going to come out fine as they will want to try land instill faith after the last attempt to manipulate, maybe they'll mess with Nevada or for sure manipulate on super Tuesday whereas they'll think it less noticeable to some who'll just be engulfed with being happy it wasn't there state election process that got messed up.

I think the most ironic thing to come out of this is the many liberals who don't think they'd did anything of this nature in 2016 to the Trump campaign. If what they did to Bernie in 2016 had been it most democrats I believe could actually still see it as that, an attempt against Bernie but not Trump. Given what we see going on now it highly less probable to believe that they wouldn't have done that to their opposing party candidate.

One other interesting thing I read the other day was an article where a reporter gave his speculation on what he thinks will happen. He felt that by the end of February, maybe early March they'll be a movement to bring Buttigieg in alignment with Elizabeth Warren. When you think about it it all makes sense since they are so into this appearances of diversity/inclusion kick regardless of the qualifications/consequences, (not that I am interjecting what qualifications there should be but making that remark in regards to Warren's statement of letting a nine year old influence her decision of secretary of education was more than a bit overboard) that it wouldn't be beyond me that they'd throw the whole election under the bus to maintain that status quo, a Buttigieg/Warren ticket would surely fulfill that objective.

Interesting analysis!

If what the reporter was saying came to any fruition, after tonight's primary, and the DNC seeming to want to move away from the socialist candidate Bernie, it seems that Klobuchar is positioning into place to be the pick if they were to go that route. Minus any calls of election interference that had to be a big ouch for Warren to come in behind Klobuchar in her neighboring state.

what a wonderful analysis coming from you...

I think we can better analyze each other's critiques when we accept that the parties can and often do come with faults attached. Those faults each have their own varying degrees of seriousness which at times makes us pay more attention then others. One reason I think we have to continually try and search for our own answers and, at times, the things we find aren't the things we wanted to find, think about or contemplate as a probability or truth. Searching for the truth behind what really happened during the 2016 Russian election meddling/hoax or whatever people want to label it I had to face that prospect myself when addressing it in regards to all the players the democrats said were involved. That meant stepping back from what the parties were all saying and going to the underground to see what was plausible. What I came back with was, and it blew my mind to tell you the truth, a plausible avenue that it could have been done on behalf of the Trump people. It was compelling and to be honest riveting information. That analysis though came from not just the public players involved but looking at whom they were associated with, whom those players were and their history, these are things you don't see unless you go looking for them. Up until the Ukrainian controversy until I could establish well connected dots in regards to the democrats as a probability of being behind it I always had to hold in the back of my head the likelihood those bumbling batch of idiots associated with Trump pulled off the crime of the century. It was torrid, riveting, shocking, totally disappointing to say the least but I had to face the reality of probability even without a solid criminal case of proof. Even when Mueller exonerated the whole Trump/Russia probe I still held/knew exactly why even if they were found innocent there was a probability that wasn't true. I admit I felt somewhat more relieved after looking at all the players involved in Ukraine when it came to the probability it was the democrats, as it turns out that was also plausible but like I said you have to dig deep, you have to look at all the public players and who they are associated with and how they played into the scheme. You may not come out proof positive of criminality involved but you will find answers other than what the main stream media is telling you or knows. Most importantly you have to be willing to accept that what you find isn't what you wanted to find and be able to accept that probability there is fault and it may not come out in favor of the team you are on. At least when they, or if they, ever come out with positive proof about anything you don't feel like a totally oblivious fool.