Thank you Willow.
I repeated most of the searches in the video on Google and Bing and got the same differing results as the video.
Creepy.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by PufPuf93 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:08 pm
by JackRiddler » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:17 pm
by PufPuf93 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:50 pm
by Wombaticus Rex » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:09 pm
by Project Willow » Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:24 am
by Nordic » Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:42 pm
by Nordic » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm
Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies
June 18, 2016
After applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data several academic researchers conclude Hillary Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.
Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies
0 0 1 0
June 18, 2016
After applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data several academic researchers conclude Hillary Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.
Hillary Fraud - One in 77 Billion
Widespread allegations of election fraud and voter suppression across the United States during the 2016 Democratic Primary has sparked the interest of several academic researchers and what they discovered in their research is disturbing.
The researchers each performed independent studies in which a few different statistical was applied to analyze various subsets of vote data and of the studies came to the same conclusion.
Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud.
In fact, one of the statistical models applied by Standford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.
Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots.
In these locations Hillary won by massive margins.
On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.
Analysis also showed repeatedly irregularities and statistically impossible reverses in reported live votes in several locations across the country.
In commenting on the research, Barragan stated that some of the models are rock solid and 59 years old and the results seen here have never been witnessed in non-fraudelent election during that time period.
To summarize, at least four different independent studies were conducted with various statistical models applied.
The researchers applied the different statistical models to:
Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts.
Various subsets of demographic polling data verse actual vote counts
The results of each study corroborated the with the results of the others and some of the researchers have review the work of the others’ and go onto to confirm the findings in those studies.
It will take months for the studies to undergo peer review.
However, all of their research statistically proved there there must of been widespread fraud to create the discrepancies in the vote counts that exist in all 3 subsets of the data analyzed.
The research of Barragan, done collaboratively with Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands.
That research corroborates independent mathematical research conducted by Richard Charnin.
Further independent research was conducted by Beth Clarkson of Berkeley who also not only corroborated the two previous studies but reviewed them and after her research was done and confirmed their results.
A PDF Summary of the Barragan/Geijsel study “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” can be found here.
The meat of the study is contained in the Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References to Barragan’s Study and in the attachments which follow.
Attachment:
Page 1
This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.
Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.
– from http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
The amount of support Clinton receives among blacks is far higher in states without a paper trail, than the states with a paper trail.
Page 2
Even when adjusting for the proportion of black voters in a state, the amount that votes for Clinton is still disproportionally higher.
[note from the writer, this might indicate that if tampering with the votes has occurred, it would be reasonable to assume that they are added to subgroups which are claimed to heavily favor Hillary Clinton, i.e. black and female voters (for the latter I have not found the time yet)]
Retrieved from: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/20 ... mary-appro…
Page 3
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190571/sande ... ks-best-yo…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191465/mille ... election-p…
Page 4
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-m ... egatives-a…
retrieved from: http://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/ ... esidential…
Page 5
Retrieved from: http://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/ ... esidential…
Page 6
In the above polls done by Gallup and Pew research center Sanders scores a higher favorability ratings than Clinton. In all the ratings, conducted by these renowned institutes, they found that the favorability ratings for Sanders consistently outperformed Hillary Clinton, with mixed results in the subgroup of African American voters. The last being one of the biggest claimed subgroups which would favor Hillary Clinton. This is in stark contrast with the results in the non paper-trail states, where Clinton won the African American vote with 83%. In the paper-trail states, she only won them with 74% of the votes. The latter lying far closer to the polling results.
Not just that, Sanders outperforms Clinton in almost all the groups and subgroups in these polls, which is in stark contrast with the end results from the primaries. These results in earlier elections often lied very closely to the actual final results.
* * *
In the following pages, graphs are shown containing the cumulative placed votes over time. In sampling, polling, or any other form of statistical analysis. The general rule is that the higher the amount of trials that one does, the more you would get closer to the actual ‘true’ number. Meaning, the more votes that are placed, the more chance that the number that is given is correct.
Because of this, at the start of the polling, the numbers might fluctuate heavily, after which they will stabilize over time. Similar to an 1/x graph. On the following three pages, you will find numerous examples in which the graphs will indeed smoothe out. These are examples of graphs as you would normally find them.
On the three pages thereafter, you will find abnormal curves. Incidentally, all of these changes favored Hillary Clinton. Below the graphs, you will find the p-value as we found through our own proportional analysis. Meaning, the smaller the p-value, the higher the discrepancy between the exit-polls and the final results (i.e. indicating the chance of such an occurrence; e.g. p=0,07 is a 7% chance). These are indications of election fraud taking place.
Most of the normal curves are retrieved from the New York Times website. The abnormal curves have been retrieved from the website of – https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/ca ... -election/ . The reason for this is because the abnormal graphs have been removed from the mainstream media websites.
“One can also search for trends to check for fraud. One of the most revealing methods, the Cumulative Vote Share Analysis, searches for a correlation between the size of a discrepancy (between recorded vote and exit polls) and the size of a precinct. When no fraud has taken place the trend tends to be quite regular. When the discrepancy tends to manifest as the size of the precinct becomes larger than a certain value, it is a strong indication of fraud, according to Richard Charnin. Roughly speaking the reason for this behavior is that electronic rigging is implemented strategically in order not to become obvious. The discrepancy caused by the rigging is “better” distributed between those precincts that are big enough to be worth the effort.”
– http://www.democracyintegrity.org/Elect ... -math.html
It goes on and on ..... Too much to cut and paste all of it, at least for me right now.
by slimmouse » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:10 pm
by conniption » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:13 pm
Washington's Blog
Election 2016 Emigre Super Blocs- How the Emigres Function
Posted on July 9, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog
By George Eliason, an American journalist living in Ukraine.
“Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes.” Matt Tiabi - Rolling Stone
No matter where you look inside the CEEC or associated emigre voting blocs you will find the 1st generation emigres in America after WWII were for the most part Nazi SS, Axis counterparts, Prometheans, or their children.
From the late 1940’s until this current election cycle, they provided the foot-soldiers for all the political parties and in the primaries they consistently provide the majority of voters for the candidates. During general elections, they provide the most dedicated on the ground political activists and large bloc votes that determine election outcomes.
The emigres developed settlement patterns to facilitate this early on and gained a rapid and powerful presence in American politics. This is what made the gerrymandering process relatively easy and natural looking by guiding new immigrants into their bloc region or Congressional district.
continued...
by conniption » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:08 pm
off-guardian
(embedded links)
Published on July 27, 2016
Comments 25
DNC Hack: Ignore the diversions – the content is what counts
by Kit
clinton schultz sanders
The hacked and leaked e-mails of the Democratic National Committee prove what many people already knew – the primaries were unfair. This is not a surprise, anybody paying attention to the race for the past months has witness massive “voting irregularities”, then there’s the totally undemocratic system of “super delegates”, and the ridiculously unfair provisional ballots.
The DNC e-mails, where party officials discuss ways to discredit and sabotage Sanders’ campaign, merely serve to turn a glut of evidence into an all-out orgy.
That the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, should be forced to resign in disgrace…only to be immediately hired by Clinton’s campaign, is just the icing on the cake.
The elections were rigged. Sanders never had a chance. That is clearer now than it has ever been.
You would think that evidence of massive corruption at the heart of the American political establishment would be newsworthy, but you would be wrong. Hillary, in this case as in many others, seems to be above criticism. Unfortunately for the establishment, simply ignoring it wasn’t really an option, because nowadays people have twitter and facebook. This was happening here and now…it’s not just some Yemeni wedding party that you blow up and pretend never existed.
No, what they really needed was a distraction, and Conway Twitty is dead.
Blaming Russia is the new black, in this regard. It was all the Kremlin! The Kremlin leaked these e-mails…it doesn’t matter what they said, in fact don’t even read them…RUSSIA! PUTIN! KREMLIN!
It’s important to point out at this point, that there is literally no evidence Russia leaked these e-mails. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Sure, they MAY HAVE. But loads of people may have. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians. Trump or Sanders campaigns. Germany, France, Britain. A Clinton or DNC whistleblower. An aggrieved ex-employee. Wikileaks. Or just some guy with a shitload of proxies and spare time.
If I had to make a guess, I would say the hack probably came from an anti-neocon faction inside the American intelligence services, someone who can foresee what the Clinton/Nuland foreign policy would mean for the rest of the world, and doesn’t especially want to be turned into a small pile of glowing dust.
The list of possible suspects is endless, and who knows what games are played behind the scenes in the corridors of power? It doesn’t matter. Speculating on motives and guilt is pointless, and to engage in it, even to refute obviously spurious claims, is allow the narrative to be controlled.
It doesn’t matter who hacked what, or why. It doesn’t matter whether or not Trump knew, or Putin knew, or Assange knew. It doesn’t matter where it comes from.
What matters is the e-mails show a reporter for the New York Times editing an article he wrote about Bernie Sanders at the direct request of Clinton’s campaign.
What matters is the DNC staff using terms like “tacobowl” to refer to the Hispanic voter base, and planning to to attack Sanders religion (or lack thereof).
What matters is the sort of person we have running for the most powerful position in the world, the sort of people they employ, the sort of underhanded tactics they use, and their casual attitude towards the corruption of the democratic system.
We should be talking about the cold hard facts of an increasingly scary world, not whether or not Donald Trump is a Russian spy.
Clinton has been cheating the system since the beginning, and we can’t let ourselves get distracted from that.
DNC in Philly | California Sanders Delegates Blocked | White Noise Machines Installed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i4Z7Wcd6Nw
Published on Jul 28, 2016.
by Luther Blissett » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:24 am
Only 9% of America Chose Trump
and Clinton as the Nominees
The United States is home to 324 million people.
103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote.
88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections.
An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election.
The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats.
But half of the primary voters chose other candidates. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will be working to win the votes of these three groups. Polls suggest they will be separated by just a handful of squares.
by conniption » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:00 am
Published on Aug 9, 2016
Robert Fitrakis says that the partisan firms which manage election data and technology targeted young Sanders supporters to ensure a Clinton victory
by Sounder » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:14 pm
by Luther Blissett » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:08 pm
Breaking-Dem Convention Finally Reveals Its List of Corporate Influence Buyers
Even the New Republic called the Democratic National Convention 'one big corporate bribe,’ as Trump-phobic donors threw in big money
Corporate interests and influences have gained a great deal of ground in the Democratic Party under Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. For example, Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz rescinded a DNC ban enacted by Barack Obama in 2008 on donations from lobbyists and SuperPACS. The decision helped Clinton keep up with Bernie Sanders’ grassroots fundraising.
The Democratic National Convention was as The New Republic’s David Dayen put it, “one big corporate bribe,” with corporations compensated for ignoring the Republican Convention out of fear of bad Donald Trump PR. As far as the elite establishment is concerned, the lines between Democrats and Republicans have blurred, with millionaires and billionaires of all political affiliations pouring donations into Clinton’s campaign.
In 2014, public funding was pulled from both political parties’ conventions, opening the 2016 Democratic National Convention up to dubious donors shielded from transparency. Meanwhile, a 2014 budget law increased contribution limits to political convention committees.
The DNC’s host committee refused to release the list of their donors funding the convention, even after a court order. On Monday, September 26, two months after the convention, the list of donors was finally filed with the FEC during the first presidential debate, in order to fly under the news coverage radar as much as possible.
According to the filing report, some of the donors include George Soros’ son, Alexander, who gave $200,000; Priorities USA, a SuperPAC funded by George Soros, gave $1.5 million; Bank of America gave $1 million; Chevron gave $25,0000; Citigroup gave $100,000; Morgan Stanley gave $75,000; Wells Fargo gave $500,000; former Goldman Sachs CEO Donald Mullen who helped cause the 2008 economic recession gave $100,000; hedge fund investor and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “corporate point-man” Michael J. Sacks donated $300,000. For a political party that nominated Clinton, who hilariously claims to be the champion of Wall Street reform, these prolific donations from the financial industry suggest otherwise.
Blackstone Holdings gave $125,000 to the Democratic National Convention. According to International Business Times, just two months after the private equity firm settled with the SEC due to charges that they exploited monitoring fees to boost the firm at the expense of its investors, Blackstone Holdings president Tony James hosted a fundraiser for Clinton.
When she was a senator, Clinton introduced the TCE Reduction Act of 2008 to regulate the chemical trichloroethylene, of which Dow Chemical was the largest domestic producer. Shortly after Dow Chemical became a sponsor of the Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton backed off the bill. Dow also donated $250,000 to the DNC this year.
Independence Blue Cross, a health insurance company that has actively lobbied against a single-payer healthcare system, donated $1.525 million.
Bennett S. Lebow, chairman of the board of the tobacco holding company the Vector Group, donated $100,000 to the convention. According to the Associated Press, a guest of Lebow’s with ties to the Russian mob attended a fundraiser for Bill Clinton in 1997.
Facebook donated $1.45 million to the convention. Google donated $500,000. Twitter donated $250,000. These donations don’t help the case of these social media sites when they argue that they don’t censor content not in line with their political agenda. In April, several Bernie Sanders groups simultaneously disappeared, with Facebook attributing the shutdown to a glitch.
The Democratic National Convention donor list — and the party’s obstruction of transparency in delaying its release even after they lost in court — further signals that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the corporations and wealthy influences that spend so lavishly on it.
by Luther Blissett » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:41 pm
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT DONALD AND HILLARY ARE PALS
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
In 1982, actor/comedian Andy Kaufman and a professional wrestler named Jerry “The King” Lawler appeared as guests on Late Night with David Letterman together, and an altercation ensued.
Kaufman had been involved in the pro wrestling circuit for some time at that point and had made a show of playing the universally despised misogynistic heel as the defender of the so-called Inter-Gender Championship, where he wrestled women and taunted the crowd while spouting sexist insults. At some point, he ran afoul of Lawler, who injured the offensive Hollywood star’s neck with a piledriver slam before a crowd of cheering fans. The two were then brought onto Letterman’s show for some jolly entertainment, but Lawler grew angry and slapped the neck brace-wearing Kaufman in the face, who let loose a string of words that you cannot say on television and stormed off the set, making headlines the next day.
It was not until 10 years after Kaufman’s death that it was revealed that the entire thing had been staged and that he and Lawler were good friends.
Did you know that Donald Trump is a member of the WWE Hall of Fame? Check their website if you don’t believe me. The man was literally a pro wrestling heel for a time. There are videos of him clotheslining WWE’s CEO Vince McMahon at Ford Field in 2007.
Trump is a known fan of the theater of pro wrestling. He appreciates it. He studies it. He’s participated in it.
Just like Andy Kaufman.
I’m bringing this up now because my Facebook news feed is currently filled with the righteous indignation of my liberal and feminist friends voicing their outrage over how Donald Trump treated Hillary Clinton during last night’s debate performance. He was so sexist and rude! He talked over her, he disrespected her, he gaslighted and mansplained, he’s an oaf and a liar.
I’d like to offer a soothing voice of reassurance to people stressing themselves out about that stuff at this time: Donald and Hillary were just playing. It was all a performance. They’re just a pair of extremely wealthy pals playfully collaborating to kill the progressive awakening in America.
Oh. I guess that’s kinda worse, huh? Ahh well. At least now you can stress about real stuff instead.
It’s true, though. Donald and the Clintons have a longstanding and well-documented friendship that goes back decades. They play golf together. They go to each other’s weddings. Politico reports that their kids play together. According to a report from The Washington Post, Mr. Trump and Mr. Clinton even shared a long phone call prior to Trump’s announcement that he’d run for president, wherein associates of both men confirm that Bill encouraged Donald to run. They’re tighter than Kaufman and Lawler.
In pro wrestling, the terms “face” and “heel” are very important. The face is the good guy, the hero, the one people cheer for. The heel takes a little more skill as a performer, because as the villain, he has to make the audience hate him. Together the face and the heel work to suck the audience into the act, where they can forget about the reality of their cold, hard lives and get lost for a time in the fake punches and pins and piledrivers. They help the audience escape into the comforting fantasy that we live in a world where heroes are rewarded and celebrated, and villains don’t hide what they are.
Donald Trump is a brilliant heel. Hillary struggles as a face, but Donald’s high-level pro wrestling chops are more than enough to make up for the talent discrepancy and let the audience get lost in the show, and hopefully lull the progressive awakening back to sleep.
And that’s all this has ever been about. The Republican party is on the verge of collapse, and the only thing stopping the Democrats from seizing total control are these pesky Berniecrats who won’t stop making noise and waking people up to what’s happening. Bernie Sanders revealed that there are a whole lot more true progressives in America than anybody had realized, and the DNC had to work real hard to stack the deck against them.
The Democrats don’t fear the right, they fear the left. They fear progressives’ ability to stagnate and reverse their agenda of using America’s overinflated military might, trade deals, rigged primaries and state-reinforced corporate power to leverage the world into endless war, wage slavery, economic disparity, exploitation, and ecocide.
Trump and the Clintons are collaborating to do exactly that. Trump works up the crowd of poor people on the right who’ve been exploited by corporatism and Wal-Mart economics, Hillary rallies the victims of wage slavery and racism on the left, and they play out this act of face and heel in a way that surely delights Vince McMahon. And Andy Kaufman, wherever he is.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
