Who is responsible?

[Lianda L]

There's NO question that many of these primaries elections are being rigged. We're seen lots of evidence presented here. I agree that Hillary's people, and Bill Clinton have been cheating during the caucuses. There are plenty of stories, videos and the like. 

We also know that Republican state " elected representatives" are removing people from the voter rolls, changing party affiliation, getting rid of polling places and making it an almost impossible challenge for many to actually cast their votes. 

However, the question is who is hacking the electronic machines?  Ask Bernie supporters on social media and they are blaming Hillary Clinton.

I'm thinking that there is a giant chess game going on here, perpetrated by Karl Rove and friends - Democrats are hearing so many stories about the rigged election and blaming Hillary - whether right or wrong. Whether or not you like or trust her, this is not fair! So many democrats are saying that they won't vote for anyone but Bernie.  Even Susan Sarandon is now saying if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, she won't vote for Hillary. That plays EXACTLY into the Rove playbook, and will end up with a Republican President!!!

I don't think they'll let Trump win at the convention, but if they do, I'm sure they'll be very careful about a VP nomination, hoping they'll be able to impeach Trump and bring in the second in command as president once they get rid of Trump. OR heaven forbid, they'll give the nomination to Cruz and then we're totally screwed! 

With all the talk by Trump and in the corporate media about the low turn-out at the polls for the Democrats (?!!- look at the lines, miles long!), Rove & friends are priming the pump to let Democrats believe, yet again, that we don't get our voters to the polls; we vote against our interests; we didn't register enough voters.  And most of all they are telling us that Hillary will have a hard time beating the republican candidate. THEN ROVE & friends ARE READY to flip the electronic election for their candidate and get away with it yet again.  And Democrats again will blame themselves and NOT the rigged election!! 

These are dangerous times with MUCH at stake. We must be very careful not to fall into the same hole again. Just because Hillary is benefitting from the cheating in all aspects of the primary votes doesn't mean her campaign is rigging the electronic vote, or even the vote by mail!

And Bernie Sanders campaign is NOT making this easy by ignoring numerous attempts to get through to his campaign to challenge and speak to the anomalies in the state primary results. I know this is a problem, I've been trying for weeks! 

Your thoughts? What can we do to not play into Rove's hands?  Does this explanation make sense to you?

[Jerry Policoff]

There are many reasons people refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.  I would not have voted for her if she had won the nomination in 2008, and I won’t vote for her if she is the nominee in 2016 (and I am a lifelong progressive Democrat).  I know you mean well, but I for one am repulsed by the notion that I should vote for Hillary because a Republican administration is the alternative.  She is a right wing neo liberal who is owned by every special interest you can name and considers war criminals like Henry Kissinger to be her mentors.  The Democratic Establishment has rigged the game for too long, and they operate under the premise that they can shove bad candidates down our throats year after year because we will hold our collective noses and vote for them.  I don’t play that game any longer.  If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination I will either write him in or vote for Jill Stein.  We will never take back the Democratic Party if we continue to allow them to corrupt the process.  I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt if we end up with President Trump or President Cruz or whomever because it will be the fault of the Democrats, not my fault.  Besides, and I apologize if this offends some people, I am not at all sure that Hillary is not even potentially worse than they are.  The way she never misses a chance to provoke Putin makes me wonder if she is itching to go to war with Russia.  Her proposed establishment of a “no fly zone” in Syria (which would violate international law, by the way), could well ignite such a war.  Are we really prepared to shoot down Russian planes if they fly into such a zone which they have as much right to do as we have?

 

I believe someone is rigging these caucuses.  Clearly some of the rigging is coming from the Clinton camp, because there is video showing her people rigging the caucuses.  Other parties may also be doing some rigging.  Frankly this is just one more reason on top of many others why I would never vote for her.

 

 

Jerry Policoff

 

1716 Swarr Run Road/ J-8

Lancaster, Pa. 17601

Home phone: 717-295-0237

Cell: 717-682-4434

I feel the Bern!

--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jerry Policoff]

By the way, Liandra, you are not accurately representing Susan Sarandon said.  She did not say she would not vote for Hillary Clinton:

 

Hayes then pressed Sarandon…if she could bring herself to vote for Clinton in a general election match-up against Trump.

“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” Sarandon said.

“Really?” an incredulous Hayes double-checked.

“Really,” Sarandon confirmed…

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/bernie_sanders_supporter_susan_sarandon_says_she_may_not_vote_for_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_will_bring_the_revolution_immediately_if_he_gets_in/

 

I, on the other hand, have made up my mind, and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

 

Jerry Policoff

 

1716 Swarr Run Road/ J-8

Lancaster, Pa. 17601

Home phone: 717-295-0237

Cell: 717-682-4434

I feel the Bern!

 

 

 

From: Jerry Policoff [mailto:jpol...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 1:41 PM
To: 'Lianda L' <lia...@beautifulcalligraphy.com>; 'Election Integrity' <Election...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ei] Who is responsible?

 

There are many reasons people refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.  I would not have voted for her if she had won the nomination in 2008, and I won’t vote for her if she is the nominee in 2016 (and I am a lifelong progressive Democrat).  I know you mean well, but I for one am repulsed by the notion that I should vote for Hillary because a Republican administration is the alternative.  She is a right wing neo liberal who is owned by every special interest you can name and considers war criminals like Henry Kissinger to be her mentors.  The Democratic Establishment has rigged the game for too long, and they operate under the premise that they can shove bad candidates down our throats year after year because we will hold our collective noses and vote for them.  I don’t play that game any longer.  If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination I will either write him in or vote for Jill Stein.  We will never take back the Democratic Party if we continue to allow them to corrupt the process.  I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt if we end up with President Trump or President Cruz or whomever because it will be the fault of the Democrats, not my fault.  Besides, and I apologize if this offends some people, I am not at all sure that Hillary is not even potentially worse than they are.  The way she never misses a chance to provoke Putin makes me wonder if she is itching to go to war with Russia.  Her proposed establishment of a “no fly zone” in Syria (which would violate international law, by the way), could well ignite such a war.  Are we really prepared to shoot down Russian planes if they fly into such a zone which they have as much right to do as we have?

 

I believe someone is rigging these caucuses.  Clearly some of the rigging is coming from the Clinton camp, because there is video showing her people rigging the caucuses.  Other parties may also be doing some rigging.  Frankly this is just one more reason on top of many others why I would never vote for her.

 

 

Jerry Policoff

 

1716 Swarr Run Road/ J-8

Lancaster, Pa. 17601

Home phone: 717-295-0237

Cell: 717-682-4434

I feel the Bern!

 

 

 

From: election...@googlegroups.com [mailto:election...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lianda L
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:25 PM
To: Election Integrity <Election...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ei] Who is responsible?

 

There's NO question that many of these primaries elections are being rigged. We're seen lots of evidence presented here. I agree that Hillary's people, and Bill Clinton have been cheating during the caucuses. There are plenty of stories, videos and the like. 

--

[Kathy Dopp]

LIanda, There is absolutely no evidence to support Hillary's campaign
as responsible for any electronic vote manipulation. In fact, it would
be highly unlikely IMO for two reasons:

Clinton people do not have either:

1. the access to rig voting machine systems (only county or township
election officials or voting system vendors and hired technicians who
work on the machines have the access), or

2. the knowhow (most county election officials have the access but
the vast majority mostly likely lack knowhow as you would understand
if you've ever met these people at one of local election official
conventions, and political operatives are normally even more
technologically clueless and Hillary, judging by her public comments,
is most certainly technically clueless)

It is really ridiculous IMO for anyone to be accusing the Clinton
campaign of electronic vote manipulation. It is much more likely that
right wing voting system owners or technicians think Hillary is more
likely to lose the general election (since her negative ratings are so
much higher than Bernie's) and so could be helping her to win the
primary.


Kathy Dopp, UT 84068
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

“A Christian who does not protect creation . . . is a Christian who
does not care about the work of God." Pope Francis

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

[Anderson]

 

Take a quick look at this map.

 

50.1% of the US population lives in these 244 counties.

 

 

http://imgur.com/uZvp2OB

 

So, if one wanted to steal a LOT of votes, it would only be necessary to steal 244 counties.

 

Remember when someone asked a bank robber “Why do you rob banks?”

 

Answer: “That’s where the money is.” [Now, of course, electronic identity theft is where the money is.]

 

Pokey Anderson

 

 

[voternm]

"who is hacking the electronic machines?" Who stands to benefit? The more people are removed from the election process the more control the same people who own the media, finance lobbies, write legislation and own legislators, and direct propaganda in the media and campaign finance, to legal manipulations of the existing bad law or removing good law, such as the voting rights act; the more these "special interests" benefit. 

We don't live in a democracy or a republic, rather we live in a corrupt capitalist material based ethics of Darwinian economics, wherein the public views the rich as superior to the poor and that dehumanizes us all. Supremacy views of race and gender flourish while egalitarianism and progressive socialist based democracy flounders. We are spiraling into the fascist bucket reserved for workers, solders, and people they view as inferior expendables to serve their wealth expansionism and materialist ethics.

Elections are media theater and we are not participants in a meaningful way, rather we are convinced our vote does count while their software based systems are easily reprogrammed with resident and terminal software code that changes election results to their whims and best interest. Who benefits is the obvious "follow the money" trail to the answer rubric, or how to discuss how the mafia works or a watch? Complex obfuscation of any process allows the corruption to go unnoticed and lets those controlling the system become more masterful in their control. 

Eliminate the abuse of power by counting paper ballots in the polls on election day of the top 3-4 races and the rest to be counted by hand in the next day(s) with witnesses and record it on digital video so we can all "audit" or witness the process and check the tally books and election totals. People centered elections are what the Germans do based on their Constitution that was drafted on the qualities we find in our own Constitution to protect the rights of people not the rich and powerful. Corporate Kings are by their nature going to seek more power, control more, and corrupt more to make more money and enhance their materialist measure of their success. Life is not a material based quality when you die, so why do we value life materially? The quality of the moment with our fellow men and women is the measure of the quality of ourselves and our lives, and the freedom and democracy we are supposed to champion as U.S. citizens. 

Casey

-----------------------------------------------------

[Richard Charnin]

Kathy, 

Do you believe Clinton is aware of efforts to steal the election by purging voter rolls and changing registrations?

Do you think that she may be aware of vote rigging on her behalf, as was done in the 2008 primaries?

The fact that she does not control the voting machines does not preclude the very real possibility that she knows who is responsible.

If the DNC did not rig the machines, then who did?

Sherlock says: Once you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with the truth. 

Or to state it another way, consider the Process of Elimination.

Why has HRC not spoken out against ELECTION FRAUD?

CUI BONO?

[Kathy Dopp]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Richard Charnin
<richard...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kathy,
>
> Do you believe Clinton is aware of efforts to steal the election by purging
> voter rolls and changing registrations?

Yes. IMO, Clinton is most likely aware of anything going on that is
visibly easy to detect and understand or that political scientists
seem to be willing to study and admit is going on.

> Do you think that she may be aware of vote rigging on her behalf, as was
> done in the 2008 primaries?

If she is aware of the different patterns or the discrepancies, I
believe she deludes herself into thinking there is another explanation
(demographics,...). I once spoke with her staff and they supported
the use of DRE machines in agreement with Steney Hoyer (sp?) if I
recall right. I.e., Clinton probably likes the DRE and inauditable
voting methods because they seem to give her better results and buys
into the demographic explanation. I have noticed she never stands up
for post-election manual verification of the accuracy of the outcome
in other countries as well -- e.g., in Afghanistan. Like virtually
all politicians, she most likely believe a system that elects herself
must be fair and accurate.

>
> The fact that she does not control the voting machines does not preclude the
> very real possibility that she knows who is responsible.

I don't believe that is true in her case. She is an extremely busy,
hard working person who is truly trying to do the right thing in the
world, for many years, albeit, misguided IMO on certain issues. And
by misguided, I mean influenced by powerful people with convincing
sounding mainstream arguments in support of a few bad policies, but
overall I think her positions are not much different than Bernie's,
even if her strategic approaches differ, and, in some cases, her's are
probably more effective. I'm being very general, but this list is not
devoted to the topic of political positions.

[Randy Moor]

I don’t believe this issue needs to be contentious. If a voter does not live in a swing state (i.e., Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, or Florida) then by definition one’s vote cannot affect the outcome in that state. So let them vote their conscience and select the candidate whose record and positions they prefer so the nation will know their true preference. Meanwhile let voters in the seven swing states vote for the lesser evil if they choose.

 

If enough voters were to adopt this policy I believe we would see a much higher percentage of voters in non-swing states choosing a candidate other than the one representing their own party. That would be an indicator of the possibility that swing state voters would have voted outside their party too if they had felt free to do so. In this way we could avoid the perpetual lesser-evil dilemma (and the strife that goes with it) while weakening the power of the duopoly.

 

Randy

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com