Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts

Friday, May 20, 2016

Do you ever wonder why Paul Craig Roberts refers to Hillary Clinton as "Killary"? Well read this. This artical was composed by Michael Collins, a friend of mine who writes factual articals on places and people that most U.S. readers would not learn about from the so-called "mainstream media".



What about violence from the Clinton campaign?

By Michael Collins
(Creative Commons 4.0)


Some rough housing at a Democratic Party convention in Nevada over the weekend shocked party leaders and the mainstream media. The official custodians of propriety demand that Sanders control his followers and denounce their actions. The double standard on this issue is simply appalling since the Clinton campaign represents failed policies that got 350,000 killed and future plans (the “no fly zone” for Syria) that will cost even more lives.

To be specific, Hillary Clinton’s policies, as secretary of state, helped launch the Libyan regime change operation. To date, 100,000 Libyans are dead due to that foreign policy fiasco. Clinton was the tip of the spear for the “Assad must go” movement resulting in major support for extremist jihadist fighters attacking the sovereign state of Syria. Why? Because Assad didn’t just amble off when then Secretary of State Clinton commanded him to he leave his office and nation. The death toll in Syria is 250,000.

In sum, Hillary Clinton’s past policies and efforts resulted in 350,000 dead people. She is the only remaining presidential candidate with a major death toll.

Clinton supporters need to accept the simple truth that their candidate vigorously supports violent policies that caused suffering, death, and the destruction of two nations. The essence of Clinton’s time in the Senate and as Secretary of State revolves around violence – supporting the Iraq war and the attacks on Libya and Syria.
 
Having said that, lets look at the smear campaign against Sanders due to the actions of some outraged supporters at a Nevada convention last weekend.

From Bernie Sanders can’t afford to stay silent any longer, McClatchy DC, May 19:
“Over the weekend, dozens of Sanders devotees lost their minds after the Nevada Democratic Party, meeting for its convention in Las Vegas, awarded a majority of delegates to front-runner Hillary Clinton.
“Convinced that the establishment had rigged the rules and that Sanders delegates had been excluded for unfair reasons, they booed and traded barbs with people on stage, including Clinton surrogate and keynote speaker U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.”
What’s wrong with that? The Democratic Party has systematically discriminated against the Sanders campaign through any number of documented actions. DNC Chairperson, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL), accused the Sanders campaign of intentionally hacking a DNC voter database and cut the campaign off from access.

Rank and file Democrats have every right to be outraged. They’re finding out what Republican voters are discovering, that primary elections are just widow dressing for the ultimate will of the party leaders.

Democrats have a special anti-democracy feature that is so outrageous even Republicans shy away from it: super delegates. The party selects 719 superdelegates who can vote as they choose, without any regard to the outcome of presidential primaries in their respective states. What’s that about? Isn’t that a reason to be outraged?

The McClatchyDC editorial goes on to make some points that are too pathetic to even repeat with the exception of their insistence that Sanders stand up to the mob.

OK, let me get this straight. Some pissed off Sanders delegates act out at a state meeting where they think they’re getting screwed and all of a sudden they’re a mob. Here’s the translation of standing up to the mob: smacking down rank and file citizens who have the unmitigated gall to think they have a right to be heard, to have their votes counted and to receive the respect due every single citizen in this country participating in the election process.

Hillary Clinton must apologize for the violence she perpetrated in Libya and Syria.

Hillary Clinton must retract her plans for support of more violence in Syria, particularly the insane “no fly zone” propose, and Hillary Clinton must swear that she will no longer support extremist jihadists disguised as moderates.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters need a reality check about the policies of violence they endorse by supporting this candidate. They can either reject the violence their candidate or embrace it and stop whining about a little shoving and shouting in Nevada.
Creative Commons 4.0

Monday, November 12, 2012

I AM REPOSTING MICHAEL GREEN'S INSIGHTFUL ANSWER TO RICHARD CHARNIN'S QUESTION: WHY DIDN'T CNN UPDATE ITS ELECTION WEBSITE TO INCLUDE THE 4.15 MILLION VOTES THAT CAME IN AFTER ROMNEY CONCEDED?



I am reposting Richard Charnin’s good analysis of the late-counted votes, but with enlarged fonts and separated line to make it readable.  Richard’s point is simple but should be made explicitly.  After Romney threw in the towel and there was no longer any active motivation to rig the remaining vote count, that remaining vote count gives us a better estimate and view of the actual voting distribution; this in turns gives us an excellent estimate of the extent of the routine fraud, notwithstanding the sampling bias (hah!) in the late-counted votes.  Richard asks why CNN has not updated its figures.  The better question is why CNN, the mainstream media generally, and the Obama DOJ does not leap to attention and bring the brigands to justice.  The answer is that the fraud that Richard and others have uncovered is and remains in the realm of state crimes, i.e., crimes done by elements of the rulings class with ties to the intelligence and finance community, often using their resources to organize lower level troops at the grounds level, that are too deep and long-standing to challenge without an overt war within the ruling class that risks involving the people directly, a contingency that all parties agree is to be avoided at all costs.  The problem is not and has never been that the upper levels of power of the "Democratic" party do not know what is happening; they know very well.  But their means of exercising their power, and exercise it they have been doing, avoid democratic process and participation at all costs.

Regards,  Michael Green



The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?

Obama had 63.1% of the final 4.15 million votes. He had 52.9% of the full 131 million recorded.

What is the MoE for a 4 million polling sample? {Hint: just about zero.}


Blogger's clarification: MoE stands for Margin of Error.. Think about this!  At the end of a proof, the mathematician writes "Q.E.D."


Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: [ei] Re: The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?
Obama had 63.1% of the final 4.15 million votes. He had 52.9% of the full 131 million recorded.
What is the MoE for a 4 million polling sample?
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:34:38 PM UTC-5, Richard Charnin wrote:
The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:12:28 PM UTC-5, Richard Charnin wrote:
The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?


Richard Charnin
Nov. 10, 2012

In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, the late votes recorded after Election Day showed a dramatic increase in Democratic vote shares. 

2000- 102.6 million votes recorded on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%. 
Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes.

2004- 116.7 million votes recorded on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%. 
Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes.

2008- 121 million votes recorded on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%. 
Obama won the 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5%.

provides updated state votes which are included in the https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheet/ccc?key= 0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRN DlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29">2012 Forecasting model.
I am calculating the incremental changes in the vote count on a  daily basis. Check the updates right here.

Nov.8 - Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (117.45 million recorded votes)
Nov.9 - he led by 50.43-47.97% (119.58 million recorded)
Nov.10- he led by 50.51-47.87% (122.20 million recorded)

Obama leads by 54.65-42.96% in the 4.75 million late votes.

The True Vote Model indicated that he had an approximate 55% True Vote. A coincidence? 

The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted exit polls -  a very big exit poll with millions of respondents who told the pollster exactly how they voted. Of course, we won't see the unadjusted exit polls until years later. And 19 states were not even exit polled this time. All we have is the National Exit Pol which is always forced to match the recorded vote. It shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. But all the demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. I included them in the 2012 Presidential True Vote /Election Fraud Forecast Model in which I calculated total vote shares.

As is the case in every presidential election since 1988, the Democrat Obama did much better than the recorded vote. If they are to be believed, the Late Votes are  another confirmation of systematic election fraud. Let’s see what happens as the recorded votes continue to come in.

Why would the late votes always show an increase in the Democratic vote share?

- Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive on the part of the perennial vote thieves to continue switching late votes? Plausible.
- Could it be that the late votes are paper ballots (provisionals, absentees) and not from DREs? Absolutely. 
- Could it be that the late votes are coming in from Democratic strongholds? Maybe some, but surely not all.

You decide.