That Buttigieg pays $100,000 for software he doesn't need to cover up a bribe used to "rig" the preliminary results of the caucus? If that's the case, wouldn't it backfire horribly once the paper ballots get manually tabulated? Especially since that would probably happen around the time of the next (NH?) primary. A story like that ("Buttigieg didn't actually win in Iowa!") would totally derail any momentum (since the actual # of delegates in Iowa is fairly insignificant, about 1% of the total, my understanding is that the main value of the Iowa caucuses is to construct media narratives)
This is a conspiracy theory. Please don't amplify this disinformation. There is no proof anything this commenter is stating has anything to do with the issues in Iowa.
Are you disputing the stated facts, or just the (unstated) connection to the other issues? A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, no matter how far it may or may not have gone.
Shadow provides peer to peer engagement software, which is being used by the Buttigieg campaign. Just because the same software is being used in Iowa doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest.
I think the standard is to avoid the appearance of a conflict, not to have plausible deniability. I think the person’s point is that it doesn’t look good, and this is the kind of scenario where _you need everything to look good_, because when shit like this happens, it erodes confidence all the more.
You are implying that the app developer, the Buttigieg campaign, former Hillary Clinton staffers, and the DNC are working together in bad faith. Along with the context of the article, you are implying that there is a connection between the aforementioned parties and declining the DHS' offer to test the app.
I've said nothing about a conspiracy. I've only said there's a clear conflict of interest, which I stand by. You shouldn't hire a developer that is ideologically driven and tilted toward certain candidates over others, and has very clear close connections with a single campaign.
You're saying that like pointing out that the Hillary people ran the development for this app is similar to anti vaccine arguments. They arent similar.
> Calling something a conspiracy theory is a new way to shame people who hold opinions that are different than your own.
Is a vastly more broad statement. All I'm pointing out is that anti-vaxx people would say the exact same thing. Answer challenges with facts and arguments, not useless bold claims.
I'm sort of troubled by the fast & loose nature of mieseratte's statements; in such a simple matter one might as well be accurate about the location of the statements referenced, and WillPostForFood is correct that the statements that contain "benefit white" students/applicants are not in the abstract but later. I also think that there's a bit of subtle misrepresentation when this discussion is being framed as "benefiting whites". There are many white people in the US who do not have access to college, do not have access to good public education, do not have the financial means to become legacy students, etc. In the sentences from the article, there's some set theory going on: among admitted students, a larger fraction of white students were benefited by ALDC preferences. Among applicants, a larger fraction of white students got the benefit of these admissions. This is a race thing, sure, among people already applying for college -- which is already a substantial filter with its own complexity.
Many colleges care about legacy admissions because they cement a family (and their donations and alumni networks and job help and etc) to a college more securely than anything else. It is also true that this perpetuates the patterns of the past. One of those patterns in the US is that white people got to go to college and others did not. White people should not get too sensitive about this. It's just true.
"The ongoing debate about the use of affirmative action in college admissions has also drawn attention to the impact that other admissions preferences have on the racial composition of college students"
Observing that lots of people are concerned about affirmative action is not the same as advocacy for affirmative action. Observing and even criticizing discrimination in favor of white applicants is also not the same as advocacy for affirmative action.
I would warn that the studies on that are still preliminary. Even really promising research, like the Vitamin D supplement craze from a couple of years ago, can fizzle out when more data comes in.
They talked about it at a recent Solr conference Activate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ336PTZfhU (Rebuilding Message Search at Slack - Josh Wills & John Gallagher, Slack
)
Honest question - why should we believe Equifax would act differently from Facebook?
Are there additional regulations or something? Every company under the sun wants to do credit checks before they do business with me; and they often don't ask me about it in advance. Is there some mechanism that would make that data less valuable to them if they wanted to do political targeting?
I don't take it as a given that Equifax would be more careful with my data than Facebook is, but maybe I'm missing something about how credit regulations work?
I would love to hear from one of these folks! I have so many questions.