Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[Novem5er]

I want to know one thing:

Who the hell are Hillary's supporters?

Seriously. Oh, I'm sure she has them somewhere, but who are the vocal, die-hard, TROOPS? I've never met one. I've never seen anything pro-Hillary posted on Facebook, blogs, or anywhere really.

Nope. All I know are people who dig Sanders. And it's not just "digging" him. He is Obiwan Kenobi.

Everyone I know either supports Sanders or are vehemently opposed to him, but even those people aren't Hillary supporters. I suspect I know some closet Trump supporters, just as I'm sure I know closet Hillary supporters. But vocal and active Hillary supporters? None. Most people I know, or friends-of-friends, are either Bernie supporters or Libertarians who hate everyone.

[Nordic]

Check out the screenshots on display in this post:

https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com ... reen-shot/

Election Live Results Observers Catch Sanders Votes Going DOWN – SCREEN SHOT:
Posted on April 26, 2016 by truthfirst12013
Observers are watching the live results come in and documenting the results through screen shots – here is the FIRST big flip. Sanders votes GO DOWN and percentages flip in huge red flag ways – this is in Delaware. Here are the screen shots for SUSSEX COUNTY from Washington Post caught by TWO different posters – First taken by: Aimee Rox Coleman (more of these images documented in other participating primary states tonight, we will update as they become available):

13102606_10209731339746913_8392624997746787879_n

Another user caught this from the Guardian:

13043670_10206435734152871_2526742105835237793_n

Aimee also caught this shot from New York documenting how the results go down for Sanders in New York in that primary last week:

I can't grab and post the image addresses here right now but maybe someone else can. Astounding.

[Novem5er]

Interesting post above, Nordic. Though I will point out that in the NY example they posted, Clinton's numbers went down, too. They had 112% precincts reporting and then in the next screengrab, it was down to 100% reporting and both candidates' numbers went down.

It does beg to question how 112% of precincts reported their results in the first place. What kind of computer model algorithm are they using, huh? That might "explain" the Sussex county numbers, too, why they'd be up for Bernie and then down a few thousand . . . impossible, unless no numbers are actually being reported at all, and everything is being projected. "Projected" as in manifested.

Good find.

[mentalgongfu2]

Those screenshots are compelling.

Best thing I can say, as devil's advocate, is if someone really wants to know, they need to figure out where the data for those graphs came from and whether and how it was vetted. It's quite possible the explanation is someone entered some wrong numbers or something - ending up with 112% is obviously not the result of good math. What I'm getting at is either the data entered by The Guardian et al. is wrong or the data coming to them is wrong (read: maniupulated). Are the numbers here coming direct from an election official, the official gov't website, a third party, or what? Chain of evidence.

[justdrew]

http://boingboing.net/2016/04/26/brand- ... rogre.html

Some of the technology activists who were key to the Dean, Obama and Sanders campaign have a new, audacious program: they're going to run 535 bipartisan candidates for office in the 2016 election, backed by a single website for fundraising, grassroots organizing and messages, based on Bernie Sanders' political platform.

A recurring criticism of Sanders' platform is that without a Congress and state-level governments to support him, President Sanders would just be one voice (albeit a powerful one). This hasn't escaped the attention of activists who worked on the campaign. With Brand New Congress, progressives will have the chance to work together, across the country, in solidarity, to replace the incumbents who owe their jobs to the rich and powerful with new entrants who owe their jobs to the people and have sworn to fight for "a unified economic, social justice, and climate change platform."

We will make announcements prior to this when we reach 10 and 100 candidates, fueling our volunteer base and donations each time.

Our candidates will be working people from many backgrounds and fields who:

* Are good at what they do.

* Are proven servants to their communities, families, friends.

* Have consistently passed on opportunities to sell out.

* In general, have never held or sought public office.

* Agree completely on a unified economic, social justice, and climate change platform.

[RocketMan]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/26/ ... york-vote/

To Clear the Air, Sanders Should Challenge New York Vote

In November 2004, the officially announced results of the Ukrainian presidential election differed from exit polling by 12%.

U.S. officials officially cried fraud.

Last Tuesday, the results of the New York primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders differed from exit polling by 12%.

Tim Robbins has cried fraud, and the Washington Post’s most consistent Clinton hack this cycle is leading the charge in mocking him.

A friend of mine, a Sanders supporter who acted as a poll worker in Brooklyn, initially saw nothing wrong, suggesting that a bunch of people, who were ineligible to vote, cast provisional ballots for Sanders and then told exit pollsters that they voted accordingly. My friend, who has not given me specific permission to use their name, worked a precinct in the Greenpoint neighborhood, Sanders’ best in New York City. About one-third of all ballots were cast provisionally in that precinct.

But that would not explain why exit polling has been so bad in fifteen other states, missing consistently to Clinton’s benefit and outside the margin of error in eight states with open or mixed primaries

.

[MacCruiskeen]

From 2008, one of many previous RI threads about the e-voting scam:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=21134

This is why I keep using the term "post-reality". We have all known for years that these machines are not trustworthy -- it's been demonstrated over and over again, in several different countries using several different systems -- yet everyone keeps pretending that they are. It's literally infantile behaviour.

the Washington Post’s most consistent Clinton hack this cycle is leading the charge in mocking [Tim Robbins for crying fraud].

...as (let me guess) a "conspiracy theorist", right? It's 2016. How can mockery this feeble still have such a powerfully dissuasive effect?

Paper ballots did not need improving, and electronic voting improves nothing -- on the contrary. You might as well flush your vote down the toilet.

What is the actual point of these machines, if not to make it easier to steal votes and manipulate results?

[Luther Blissett]

I want to know one thing:

Who the hell are Hillary's supporters?

Seriously. Oh, I'm sure she has them somewhere, but who are the vocal, die-hard, TROOPS? I've never met one. I've never seen anything pro-Hillary posted on Facebook, blogs, or anywhere really.

Nope. All I know are people who dig Sanders. And it's not just "digging" him. He is Obiwan Kenobi.

Everyone I know either supports Sanders or are vehemently opposed to him, but even those people aren't Hillary supporters. I suspect I know some closet Trump supporters, just as I'm sure I know closet Hillary supporters. But vocal and active Hillary supporters? None. Most people I know, or friends-of-friends, are either Bernie supporters or Libertarians who hate everyone.

They are the almost-perfect-textbook-definition bourgeoisie. You're lucky to not know them.

[divideandconquer]

I want to know one thing:

Who the hell are Hillary's supporters?

Seriously. Oh, I'm sure she has them somewhere, but who are the vocal, die-hard, TROOPS? I've never met one. I've never seen anything pro-Hillary posted on Facebook, blogs, or anywhere really.

Nope. All I know are people who dig Sanders. And it's not just "digging" him. He is Obiwan Kenobi.

Everyone I know either supports Sanders or are vehemently opposed to him, but even those people aren't Hillary supporters. I suspect I know some closet Trump supporters, just as I'm sure I know closet Hillary supporters. But vocal and active Hillary supporters? None. Most people I know, or friends-of-friends, are either Bernie supporters or Libertarians who hate everyone.

They are the almost-perfect-textbook-definition bourgeoisie. You're lucky to not know them.

But I do know lots of almost-perfect-textbook-definition bourgeoisie and none of them are Hilary supporters. Moreover, I deal with the public every day and have yet to hear of one Hilary supporter. At most, I've heard she's the lesser of two evils if it comes down to Trump and Hilary.

I think Trump is Hilary's trump card. He's in it to ensure a Hilary victory. In my humble opinion, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 conditioned the public to accept Trump's run today. If Trump's outrageous behavior escalates when it's down to just Hilary and Trump, it will confirm my belief.

Having said that, I don't think this political circus is necessary to ensure a Hilary victory. It's obvious that the presidential polls and voting machines are rigged. However, in order to present the illusion of choice, the corporate media must create some sort of stage show with all the drama, quirkiness, colorful characters and high stakes of reality TV--now that Americans have confused reality with a reality television show--so people can argue vehemently over these two candidates as they would argue over their picks for American Idol, The Bachelor, etc...

[Iamwhomiam]

Machine Democrats are Hillary's main supporters. (Those who cast their ballots for only for Democrats.)

I have a fair share of FB comments from her supporters who seem to jump at every opportunity to dis Bernie while praising Hillary's competency for the office of President.

My gun toting LL loves and will vote for Donald, as do and will many in my neck of the woods.

[Luther Blissett]

I have a lot of Clinton-supporting neoliberal friends. My city went big for Clinton yesterday, only a few progressive neighborhoods went for Sanders.

[seemslikeadream]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3_XUOJEQE

[NeonLX]

I have a lot of Clinton-supporting neoliberal friends. My city went big for Clinton yesterday, only a few progressive neighborhoods went for Sanders.

There are a few of those weird Clinton yard signs around here, but only in neighborhoods full of retired college professors and state government department heads.

Other than that, you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Bernie yard sign or bumper sticker.

[Luther Blissett]

I have a lot of Clinton-supporting neoliberal friends. My city went big for Clinton yesterday, only a few progressive neighborhoods went for Sanders.

There are a few of those weird Clinton yard signs around here, but only in neighborhoods full of retired college professors and state government department heads.

Other than that, you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Bernie yard sign or bumper sticker.

I was shocked. I severely underestimated her performance in this city across all demographics. African Americans that I know are from all over, but some are working class far-lefty organizers, or they are middle class musicians, hippies, and artists, I suppose. They are mostly Sanders supporters. I assumed we had a Michigan situation on our hands but the vast working poor, working class, middle class, and upper class neighborhoods all went to Clinton.

The divide here was seriously almost strictly along "hipster" lines.

[NeonLX]

Were the "Hipsters" in the Bernie camp, or were they with XXXlintoon?