"If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it." – Anonymous
One way to increase your chances of winning an argument is to control both sides of the discussion. What are the odds that the left and right aren't being played for fools?
From Trump's 2005 wedding (with guests of honor):
This post is mostly to request information from the very bright crowd here at PP.
Several reports of fraud are emerging from the California Democratic Primary voting process. Does anyone have time, inclination and access to reliable sources of information about this? I would love to hear an analysis. This piece of from Alex Jones channel on youtube:
One big issue is How are "no party preference" (NPP) voters handled. Is it true that they were given "provisional ballots" which were were NOT counted? Greg Palast advises that the great majority of California's 4.2 million NPP votors favored Bernie Sanders. These votes were not counted. Greg Palast calls the provisional ballots "placebo ballots"–they make you think you are voting but you are not.
How California is being stolen from Sanders right now
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
[Los Angeles] It's not some grand conspiracy, but it's grand theft nonetheless. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ voters will lose their ballots, their rights, by the tens of thousands.The steal is baked into the way California handles No Party Preference –"NPP" voters –what we know as "independents."
There are a mind-blowing 4.2 million voters in California registered NPP – and they share a love for sunshine and Bernie Sanders. According to the reliable Golden State poll, among NPP voters, Sen. Sanders whoops Sec. Hillary Clinton by a stunning 40 percentage points.
On the other team, registered Democrats prefer Clinton by a YUGE 30 points. NPP's can vote in the Democratic primary, so, the California primary comes down to a fight between D's and NPP's.
And there's the rub. In some counties like Los Angeles, it's not easy for an NPP to claim their right vote in the Democratic primary – and in other counties, nearly impossible.
Example: In Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary, they are instructed to say that, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race.
I’m not kidding. This is from the official Election Officer Training Manual page 49:
"A No Party Preference voter will need to request a crossover ballot from the Roster Index Officer. (Do not offer them a crossover ballot if they do not ask)."
They’re not kidding. Poll worker Jeff Lewis filed a description of the training in an official declaration to a federal court:
Someone raised their hand and asked a follow-up question: ‘So, what if someone gets a nonpartisan ballot, notices it doesn't have the presidential candidates on it, and asks you where they are?’ The answer poll workers are instructed to give: ‘Sorry, NPP ballots don't have presidential candidates on them.’ That's correct: even when people ask questions of that nature, obviously intending to vote with a party.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
- Emma Goldman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGSlRsV0IxV1ByXzQ/view?pref=2&pli=1
Stanford and Tilburg University (Netherlands) study finds statistically significant evidence for fraud in democratic party primary benefiting Clinton at the expense of Sanders. It does not make claims about who might be to blame, just an analysis the math.
Summary: States with a solid paper trail of ballots went to Sanders, and states with no paper trail went heavily to Clinton. Other factors were controlled for, including comparing with the 2008 election. In caucus states, Iowa and Nevada (which had voter suppression and other fraud) were compared with other caucus states: Iowa and Nevada had much higher support for Clinton (55%) than other states where such issues did not take place (32%). Election results were compared with exit polls: Clinton consistently fared better on ballots than in exit polls.
The "Thumbs Up" button is great for comments, but maybe add a "WTF" button.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
dave, it seems you don't really understand what anarchy is. anarchy is not chaos, unless that's what you personally choose in your own life. most of us who believe in anarchy prefer order, just not the type of order forced on others by men with badges and guns at the behest of an elite group of oligarchs.
with anarchy we can certainly organize, we can come to agreement between people voluntarily.
we can provide for common security, we can build roads, we can engage in trade.
anarchy simply means without rulers; no one has special privileges to rule over others.
why would i need to convince "the common man" of anything?
anarchy gives us the space to genuinely and authentically express our true selves. if anything, i expect more and more people over time will find the value of anarchy and gravitate towards it, as they become disenchanted with the faux elections, fraudulent markets, and economies devastated by cronyist plunder and war.
it's the free market of ideas, and i think voluntary human interaction is the better idea, and that's why it will win in the end, however long that takes.
why does a "national scale" matter? do you really feel that if you can't convince everyone else to do what you're doing, then it shouldn't be done? i don't have any grand designs about vast nations, i'm just one man living his life as he sees fit. free market and voluntary exchange between people is what works for me. people who are not quite yet adults and feel that big daddy government should be watching over them may very well not be ready for real freedom and autonomy, and that's ok - who am i to convince them otherwise?
Look, it’s really a very simple thing to understand.
Voting confers power and therefore it’s like money. Nobody in their right mind would leave a big pile of money in an insecure ATM because it would all be gone by morning with no trace of who might have taken it. Voting systems are either verifiable or they are not. That is, either you can accurately recount the votes that people cast or you cannot. If you cannot, then the system is not verifiable.
There are a huge number of states that not only have unverifiable se-voting machines, where there is literally no possibility of ‘recounting’ anything because they were not designed to allow that, but also central tabulators which are similarly unverifiable.
In a system you could verify, and therefore have some trust in, representatives from both parties could stand over a pig pile of paper ballots and recount them to their heart’s content.
The US does not have such a system in place in most locations!!
That’s why these quotes from Obama are toe-curlingly wrong, but also malicious because he’s saying that nobody could seriously question the integrity of our election system.
Obama: Trump's rigged election claim 'whining before the game's even over'Yikes. Well I am a serious person, I've studied it, and not only is rigging a US election possible, it's happened. Many times.Oct 18, 2016
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama on Tuesday cast Donald Trump's claims of a rigged election as potentially corrosive to American democracy, insisting that the Republican presidential nominee was griping about an invented conspiracy.
"You start whining before the game's even over?" Obama said during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, adding that Trump's claim is "not based on facts."
Trump and his surrogates have increasingly claimed the US election system is "rigged," coming after two lackluster debate performances and a drop in poll numbers nationally and in key swing states. He's urged his supporters to monitor polling sites for potentially ineligible voters attempting to cast ballots.
The rhetoric has been brushed off even by Republican governors, who say there are no signs of corruption in their states' voting systems.
Obama echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections."
Flat out wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And dangerous because Obama has just marginalized everybody who peeks into the true state of integrity of the e-voting machine and tabulators. Which, trust me, will be getting a solid review by a lot of Trump supporters.
What makes that all especially toe-curling is that Obama just said this a couple of days ago:
Obama decries 'wild west' media landscapeThe Ministry of Truth comes alive! Only curated truth that everybody can agree on will be allowed, if Obama has his way.Oct 13, 2016
Pittsburgh (AFP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America's "wild, wild west" media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.
Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.
"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world," Obama added.
This is beyond frightening folks. It's also statist and patronizing because it's saying "we can't trust people to think, so we're going to have to set up a curating process to assure they only see approved information." Said more simply: we here in DC don't trust little people anymore.
If the guardians of the truth decide that anybody that questions election integrity is off-base, then presumably they will be shut down or shut out of the discussion somehow.
But for people like me who use reason, and facts and logic to separate the truth (as much as it can be found) from the propaganda, I find LOTS of things all the time that don’t line up well with what’s being promoted through the mainstream media.
These are very dangerous thoughts that Obama has just linked up here, and I worry that this will all boil over if he’s not more careful. There’s only so far you can marginalize people before they decide there’s not point or room for reconciliation with your point of view.
This is polarizing to say the least.
If what Zero Hedge is reporting is true it appears that the global hegemon is close to curating Wikileaks and Julian Assange out of existence.
I'm hoping that Adam Curtis can make some sense of the increasingly surreal world we live in his new BBC documentary HyperNormalisation. (Yes, the BBC is hopelessly compromised but on occasion good content is produced. It's surprising to me that Curtis is still given a perch there.)
In other news: 2016 as much as 1.25 C Hotter than 1880s Averages.
Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin? (ZeroHedge)
Starting at 9:22:
https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs?t=562
Take a look. Any of these seem like critical states? Be ready for shenanigans in these 15 locations.
