Kuribo64
Views: 8,763,890 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
09-22-18 11:08 PM
Guest:

0 users reading Election fraud | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Marionumber1
Posted on 09-18-16 05:13 PM Link | #77595
I finally completed my blog series outlining the evidence for fraud in the Democratic primaries:

* 2016 Exit Polls and Early Voting
* When Exit Polls are Off
* Vote Rigging in the 21st Century
* The Clinton Shift

PixelDimension
Posted on 09-21-16 11:39 PM Link | #77784
It's really sad that this country, which has always claimed to be "the land of freedom and democracy", is so far from it nowadays. It's actually quite depressing. I am seriously considering attempting to get a visa to somewhere, anywhere, really in the next few years. Time to look up which jobs are in demand overseas so I know what to study...

StapleButter
Posted on 09-22-16 05:32 AM Link | #77792
Capitalism has warped it.


Capitalism warps everything it touches.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-23-16 06:40 PM (rev. 2 of 09-23-16 07:11 PM) Link | #77869
If you investigate the origin of electronic voting machines, it really does start to look like a corporate takeover. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned how election fraud was behind the rightward shift of the 1980s and 1990s. Still, electronic voting machines weren't in widespread use at this point. Most states used hand-counted paper ballots, punch cards, or lever machines. Rigging these machines individually was possible, but rigging on a massive scale could only be done with computerized vote counting.

2000 election

Then we get to the 2000 election in Florida. When most people think about this election, they think of the recount and the Bush v. Gore case. Gore's apparent loss was only by about 1000 votes, and around 200,000 ballots weren't counted at all. The Florida courts ordered a statewide recount, but conservatives on the Supreme Court stopped it and the ballots remained uncounted. Had all of the ballots been counted, Gore likely would have won. Most Democrats believe this.

But that doesn't tell the full story. While the official results were close enough to warrant a recount, the exit polls projected a 6.6% Gore win, which would have averted a recount fiasco entirely. So why do the exit polls wildly diverge from the official results? Generally, this is an indicator of election fraud, and there's in fact proof of electronic tampering: in Volusia County, Al Gore literally received negative 16022 votes. All the evidence adds up to make it look like Gore won Florida handily, and electronic vote tampering helped steal it from him.

Most people, however, aren't aware of any of this. They only remember the chaos of the Florida recount, where election officials tried desperately to ascertain the often-unclear intent of the voter. The recount hinged on the 200,000 uncounted ballots, many of which only had a partial hole punched through them (with a "hanging chad" still attached), or multiple votes for president. In the end, everyone came away with the perception that punch cards were too confusing and error-prone. Voters were unable to properly punch them, leaving those hanging chads, and some were even confused into punching multiple holes for president.

HAVA

The solution, of course, was to modernize the country's voting systems. In other words, adopt electronic voting machines everywhere. Many states began doing this on their own, and the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 to speed the process along. HAVA was meant to resolve the issues exposed in 2000 by moving us to electronic voting machines. But these issues only came to light because Florida's electronic voting machines stole the election! Without electronic fraud to bring the election so close, the hanging chad debacle never would have occurred.

In fact, it seems like part of a well-planned coup. Rig the election using electronic voting machines, blame it on the older systems, and use HAVA to make everyone adopt electronic voting machines. A single rigged election in Florida was the gateway to a countrywide set of opportunities to steal elections.

HAVA is unsurprisingly tied to special interests. Bob Ney, the author and sponsor of HAVA, was linked in a corruption case with Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who provided money and gifts to Ney. Abramoff's lobbying firm received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Diebold, a major elections vendor. Two other lobbyists - that worked for Ney, contributed to his campaign, and pushed for HAVA - also received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Diebold and other vendors. In turn, Bob Ney ensured HAVA didn't require more stringent security standards like paper trails (making fraud easier, and keeping vendors from having to update their systems), and stymied any attempts to investigate election fraud in Congress.

There are also links to George W. Bush and his associates. One of those other lobbyists was a senior aide to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Both of them got a job at the law firm of Bush's White House counsel after being lobbyists. And Abramoff was in contact with dozens of staffers in Bush's White House, including Karl Rove (Bush's chief political strategist), with whom he had a cozy and influential relationship. Karl Rove was behind the stolen 2004 Ohio election, and attorneys in Ohio connected him to multiple others.

Everything, from the 2000 election to HAVA, falls under a Bush-linked crime network working to steal elections. Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother) and the Florida GOP machine (which expressed interest in election rigging) oversaw the 2000 election fraud. In response, lobbyists linked to voting system vendors, Bush, and Rove pushed through HAVA, which led us to adopt easily-hackable voting machines across the country.

Recall that Bob Ney ensured that HAVA lacked adequate security provisions. So these voting machines, which were easy to rig and sometimes designed for fraud, became ubiquitous. What did all that achieve? Elections could now be rigged on a massive scale. A single person with access to the machines could alter multiple counties or states, a level of fraud that no other voting system made possible.

Widespread fraud

And massively rigged they were. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 were both illegitimate. The 2002 GOP wave was marked by suspicious elections, most notably those in Georgia (which had just switched to Diebold touchscreens with no paper trail). 2006 and 2008 were only won by Democrats because they overwhelmed a red shift. 2010 and 2014's GOP waves were once again the result of fraud. Hillary Clinton attempted to steal the 2008 Democratic primaries, and successfully stole the 2016 ones.

Who does this election fraud keep benefiting? The corporate right, embodied by Bush and Clinton. Bush and Clinton are both neoliberals with an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. This makes them a friend of every major industry controlling our government: Wall Street, the military-industrial-security complex, the fossil fuel industry, etc. (the leaders of the "deep state"). And looking at downticket races, the GOP nearly always benefits, which also keeps Democrats from drifting too far left.

Now, with the recent Russia fearmongering, many are proposing that the DHS oversee elections. This could give the DHS, an agency with revolving door ties to the military-industrial-security complex, jurisdiction over elections. We would lose transparency, and possibly even control, of our elections to the war profiteering industry itself.


StapleButter is right when he says that capitalism warps everything it touches. Capitalism devolves into an oligarchy without government power to keep it in check, so the plutocrats of society opt to take over the government. This has manifested in the oligarchic plan (led by the military-industrial-defense complex, and their political allies such as Karl Rove) to completely seize control of our elections. It's already introduced widespread election fraud to the United States, and now the leaders of our corporate state are preparing to literally transfer elections to their command.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-23-16 07:25 PM Link | #77870
Definitely. Big, multinational companies and such have the power.

See: Apple vs Ireland.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-23-16 07:32 PM Link | #77871
Most major corporations (the components of the deep state) benefit from election fraud, though the military-industrial-complex seems to have been the one leading the charge. When I bring up that term, it encompasses a lot of institutions: the military, defense contractors, weapons producers, intelligence agencies, and tech companies (including Silicon Valley ones like Apple). And the power of multinationals is only going to grow with the TPP, which allows them to sue governments for the regulations they pass.

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-27-16 10:29 PM Link | #79223
Well, I decided to unite a lot of my disjointed thoughts from this thread into a single blog article: Election Fraud and the Corporate Coup.

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-15-16 07:59 PM Link | #80344
The general election was more than a month ago, and the true result is still a mystery.

Historically, election fraud has always been in favor of Republicans. This makes sense, since they have ties to the election vendors and are preferred by corporate elites and war profiteers. But this election was much less clear. Hillary and Trump were both heavy corporatists, as Democrats and Republicans always are, but Hillary was in many ways closer to a Republican. She supported the TPP and aggressive foreign policy, both instruments of expanding US empire overseas, while Trump opposed them. This made her the choice of the corporate elite and deep state, including some Republicans.

That, combined with the massive fraud in her favor during the Democratic primaries, made me expect the general would be rigged for Hillary this time. And I wasn't alone: most of the anti-Hillary progressives expected the same. We even came to believe that the media's polls were manipulated to give her much higher support than she actually had. Since the media was boosting her throughout the campaign, this was logical.

It got to the point where on election day, I was certain she'd win no matter what. So when Trump ended up winning, my first response was to burst out laughing, but my reaction the next day was shock. How did this even happen?

Maybe the deep state rigged it for Hillary, but Trump won in a landslide that overwhelmed it? I thought that was likely, until I looked at the exit polls and found they told a completely different story. In virtually every state, Hillary did better in exit polls than the reported vote. Exit poll discrepancies have shown up in almost every election since we adopted electronic voting, and the beneficiary is Republicans (in general elections) and corporatists (in primaries). Now, the same evidence was showing up to indicate the election was stolen from (not for) Hillary.

This was so surprising that it produced a minor schism in the election integrity community. Most longtime analysts trusted the exit polls as an indicator of fraud, but Richard Charnin (a more well-known blogger) thought that the exit polls were rigged to create the false appearance of a Hillary win. He believed that Trump won in a landslide, and the exit polls were faked to fool election integrity investigators.

No evidence exists for Charnin's assertion; in fact, his case was mathematically unfounded. And there's additional reason to trust the exit polls. Exit polling didn't just show vote shifts favoring Trump: there were also shifts against downticket Democrats, like Wisconsin Senate candidate Russ Feingold. Corporatists might have decided to rig it for Hillary instead of Trump, but they certainly wouldn't rig it for downticket Democrats, especially a progressive like Feingold. So at the very least, the downticket red shifts are legitimate. And if they are, it's less likely that the exit polling was manipulated, since the president and Senate polls are the same.

So there's plenty of reason to think the election was rigged for Trump, but that leaves a big unanswered question: why? There was almost no reason for the deep state to prefer Trump over Hillary. Hillary agreed with them more on policy, and would be a more effective implementor of them.

Late in November, the likely reason became apparent. Mainstream media was running a story about how computer scientists found signs of fraud against Hillary, and wanted her to challenge the results. Keep in mind, this is the same media that buried election fraud for the past 16 years. The deep state owners of the media benefit from fraud, and shouldn't want it exposed. So if they're now taking fraud seriously, the deep state must stand to gain.

I thought back to early August. The media was peddling baseless stories about how the Russians had hacked the DNC, and might commit more hacks to interfere with the election. At one point, they even brought up voting machine security. This was a major surprise, since (like I said) the media prefers to keep election fraud buried. Lo and behold, they made sure to talk about it in the context of Russian hacking. The story was about how Russians might hack our election results. This claim is bogus, since insiders in the US are the real threat, but it fits the deep state's red-baiting narrative.

Maybe the media was taking election integrity seriously because they wanted it to be caught. Since Trump was painted as the puppet of Russia, Russia would be the prime culprit of the fraud. And the deep state had everything set up to blame election fraud on Russia. Imagine if it actually looked like Russia hacked the election. It would be treated as an act of war, quite possibly even leading the US into a war with Russia. This setup, which would fulfill the neocons' imperialistic agenda, might be why there was fraud for Trump.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, called for recounts in three swing states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A lot about her effort didn't add up. Despite calling out Hillary as dangerous on foreign policy, she embraced the same anti-Russia rhetoric, drumming up unfounded fears that Russia had hacked the election. Her campaign manager refused to answer why she did so. And her recount effort was supported by both the media and Democratic Party. It made it look like Democrats intended to challenge the results using Jill as a front.

(I also have a blog article about all this)

Ultimately, the recounts were a bust. Michigan and Pennsylvania had theirs blocked in court, and Wisconsin's recount was a sham, with many counties refusing to count by hand and no way to verify that the ballots hadn't been altered. Nothing changed. But that doesn't change the evidence of fraud for Trump. So if this was part of a deep state plan, and it failed, what next?

Next would be to accuse Russia of hacking the election anyway. Obama called for an investigation, and the CIA came out with a report concluding, with absolute certainty, that the Kremlin hacked the election. In reality, the only thing absolutely certain was the lack of any evidence. But the media ran with it, and many Democrats are falling hook, line, and sinker.

What will happen now? It's hard to tell. But the deep state's moves are very interesting. They seem to have rigged the election against their preferred candidate for strategic purposes, and it's backfiring. How they respond next is anyone's guess.

Yami
Posted on 12-16-16 05:34 AM Link | #80347
Supporters of Hillary Clinton are just sour losers.
If she would have won, then everyone would have said that the elections were fair.
But now she lost, Russia apparently manipulated the results.

Who's at fault for Trump winning? Putin!
Evidence? None!

It just makes no fucking sense...

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-16-16 06:45 AM Link | #80349
Posted by Yami
Supporters of Hillary Clinton are just sour losers.
If she would have won, then everyone would have said that the elections were fair.
But now she lost, Russia apparently manipulated the results.

Who's at fault for Trump winning? Putin!
Evidence? None!

It just makes no fucking sense...


Hillary supporters are indeed ridiculous hypocrites. They never cared about election fraud in the primaries when Hillary was benefiting, and they were aghast at Trump saying the election might be rigged, but as soon as she lost, they started worrying about it. And there is absolutely no evidence of Russia hacking the results. But as ridiculous as Democrats' reaction is, it'd be wrong to say Trump's win was fair. There is evidence of fraud for Trump - done by US insiders, not the Kremlin - which I've suspected is meant to frame Russia.

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-28-17 06:39 PM Link | #85334
https://twitter.com/rayjwatson/status/891014594818228224

Spoiler alert: almost every single voting machine platform at #DefCon has been pwned, and it’s only lunchtime.


And that's just the threat from outside hackers. It doesn't even get into the much more serious threat from insiders, who have a bevy of criminal and political connections. Honestly, it's appalling that the US has been running its elections this way for decades.

Marionumber1
Posted on 08-27-17 12:47 PM Link | #87284
Here's a wiki I've been putting together for the past year about election fraud and related issues: http://cavdef.hopto.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

Belsaw
Posted on 11-04-17 03:04 AM Link | #90958
Just an update: Donna Brazile admits the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton. It is hilarious to see outlets like CNN and TYT all of a sudden go with the story when they were the ones saying things like anyone who believes the DNC primaries were rigged is a misogynist conspiracy theorist paid by Russia or something.

But what about fraud in elections like 2000? Seems it may never be seriously investigated.

Jamie
Posted on 11-04-17 07:27 AM Link | #90963
Posted by StapleButter
Definitely. Big, multinational companies and such have the power.

See: Apple vs Ireland.

Could you elaborate on this? I've heard Dell have done the same thing, and I remember when Amazon refused to pay tax to the UK some years ago.
Jamie
My Blog

Belsaw
Posted on 12-20-17 03:54 PM Link | #92307
Clintonite Democrats and Neocon Republicans are now investigating Jill Stein because of "muh Russia collusion".

Going after third parties sure is nice, huh? How about you corporatists go over to Libya and free the African slaves that you caused by overthrowing Gaddafi, eh? Oh no wait, you won't do that because you will (falsely) claim you were "under sniper fire in Bosnia/Georgia".

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-20-17 06:06 PM Link | #92332
Russians don't like Hillary, they'd do anything to stop Hillary. We still need to focus on whatever is going on with Trump, though.

fiver
Posted on 12-20-17 06:17 PM Link | #92341
clintonite democrats are fucking retarded

they somehow thought Hillary Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie Sanders, and ended up costing them the election

the system is a cesspool in general
-fiverpost™
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-20-17 07:31 PM Link | #92363
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Russians don't like Hillary, they'd do anything to stop Hillary. We still need to focus on whatever is going on with Trump, though.


Dumb line of reasoning for believing in the unsupported Russiagate claims. The belief that the Russian government would do "anything" to stop Hillary (which I'd like to see evidence for) doesn't somehow prove that they hacked the election - in fact, as someone with cybersecurity knowledge, I find the "evidence" flimsy at best and dubious at worst - or set up Jill Stein to run against her. In fact, the latter is even more ridiculous, considering that Jill is a longtime Green Party member who already ran in 2012, and she gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for that photo of her and Putin that neoliberal Democrats continue to manufacture outrage about.

Belsaw
Posted on 12-20-17 08:07 PM (rev. 2 of 12-20-17 08:09 PM) Link | #92365
The whole "Muh Russia" stuff is also believed by conspiracy theorists whose delusion and mental instability rivals that of Alex Jones. For example, hey Marionumber1 how is the weather over there in Moscow? I heard the weather over there is nice for traitors. Too bad you'll be going to prison soon.

I'm not joking, I've literally seen Clintonites Tweet similar things to Jill Stein and even Bernie Sanders. I can only imagine how much worse it has gotten now.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-20-17 09:04 PM Link | #92369
I wonder if there is a suspicion of Ralph Nadering going on (which is... I don't agree), but again, I think this is pretty petty to go after a third party member who've always had zero chance of winning an election. I don't think it really ultimately matters if Jill Stein ALSO had Russian collusion; they need to focus on the Trump campaign, where it's more solid and the political opponent is more powerful.

I remember hearing something about Russia from my sister, don't know the full story, and all I know is that Russia really hates Hillary or at least doesn't trust her. Maybe they view Donald Trump as a useful idiot?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Page rendered in 0.028 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 29, rows: 232/232, time: 0.015 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.