Saturday, August 13, 2016

Rigging An American Presidential Election


So, you still believe we have a system of electing candidates that is fair to all? If so, you are so out of touch, you might as well be living on another planet. Let's call it planet Pretendicon. On Pretendicon, the voting machines are programmed by those with the richest backers. Also on Pretendicon, the news media's job is to convince citizens to vote for whoever buys them off. Money talks, you know.

I heard from the news networks that Bernie Sanders’ supporters are “crazy and violent” but I actually saw people of color attacking Trump supporters at numerous rallies across the country. That's okay, they tell us, because those Republicans deserve it. But Bernie Sanders? Why, he's just a poor old Marxist in search of an American Kremlin.

None of the networks seem interested in covering the stories of male Clinton supporters attacking female Sanders supporters or stories of Bernie Sanders campaign centers and volunteer’s apartments coming under gunfire.

So why was the corporate media constantly focused on “crazy Bernie Sanders supporters” and not an investigation of the events that led them to act so “crazy”?

Hillary Clinton’s top donors include Time Warner, Comcast and Fox. Even the most die-hard Clinton supporter would have to be curious as to why “news” networks are supporting a candidate for President. Critics of Senator Sanders’ proposals remind us that “You can’t get something for nothing.” This is abundantly obvious. The world simply does not work that way.

So why do news outlets donate millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton? Is the “news” capable of being “fair and balanced” when it is heavily invested in a campaign? The questions of media bias actually go hand in hand with other larger questions that we need to address as American voters.

The “crazy Bernie people” kept saying that the primaries are rigged. And now Trump is saying it. Let’s be clear, when the Democrats say this, they are not speaking about how the Democratic National Committee tried to maneuver Hillary Clinton out of debating Bernie Sanders entirely and when they could not do that, they scheduled the debates at times where people were unlikely to watch.

Nor are they speaking of the onslaught of corporate media manipulation that leads average Americans to believe that Sanders is not competitive in the race, even though he is far ahead of Clinton’s 2008 campaign (she lost and had to concede, whereas Sanders has forced a contested convention).

They are not even referring to the fact that millions of Sanders voters have not been allowed to vote, due to the fact that they had the audacity to register as Independents, a move they undoubtedly thought would allow them freedom of choice in their voting.

When the “crazy Bernie people” say that the DNC is rigging the election in favor of Hillary Clinton, they LITERALLY mean that votes are being changed by the voting machines.

That’s ridiculous, right?!

This is America, right?!

And where is the proof to support such ridiculous allegations?

These are all valid questions. If someone is going to make an allegation of electioneering, then they should provide support for their claim. Right?

This is problematic. Let’s imagine for a second that the “crazy Bernie people” are correct, that they voted for Sanders, but their votes were changed to Clinton by the machines. How would they prove this? The impossibility of proving this claim highlights the fact that we need an entirely new system of voting in America. One that is transparent. One that makes election rigging impossible.

Before I abandon all hope of defending the claims of Sanders “crazy” voters, let’s try one more method of discovering the truth.

In politics, we are told to “follow the money” to figure out who is pulling the purse strings.

And so it follows that an entirely new game of Internet espionage is born, as smart Internet users seek to uncover who is controlling their country, while at the same time those in power seek to hide behind shell companies and Super-pacs.

The Sanders camp provided cell-phone videos of obvious election rigging at the Nevada Democratic Convention, but that is still a hop, skip and a jump away from allegations that votes are actually being switched at the machines.

When we “follow the money” on the Diebold voting machines being used in the Democratic primaries, we find that they are supplied by a company called Smartmatic, which is owned by billionaire George Soros. I'll bet you've heard of him. Oddly, I was unable to find any commentary at all from CNN, MSNBC or any of the other corporate “news” outlets that donate to Hillary Clinton.

It seems that George Soros being in charge of the voting machines would be a huge news story, as Soros is also Hillary Clinton’s largest donor.

Wait a minute!!! Did I say the company that is in charge of the voting machines is also Hillary Clinton’s largest donor?!? Why, yes, I did.

Maybe the “crazy Bernie people” are not so crazy after all.

Surely everyone can agree that we cannot expect impartiality if the company in charge of counting our votes is heavily invested in the success of a single candidate. Why would George Soros give all this money to Hillary Clinton? And how can Hillary’s largest donor be allowed to tally our votes?

This is a blatant conflict of interest pointing directly at the heart of democracy. Heck, when they cheat like this, it's not even democracy anymore. It's gangsterism. I made up that word.

It is curious that the Massachusetts exit polling, conducted by Hillary Clinton donor Time Warner, which has been historically accurate for decades showed Bernie Sanders winning by 7 points, but once CNN “adjusted” the poll, it showed Clinton winning by 2 points (exactly the amount she “won” by).

It is curious that nearly all of the exit polling across the country showed that Sanders outperformed the final counts. Why are these people leaving the polls and lying about who they voted for? Who does that?

No one, that's who.

So why did the normally accurate exit polls show such a wide disparity between people who said they voted for Sanders and the votes that were actually credited to him through the voting machines audited by Hillary Clinton’s largest donor? It’s a fair question, right?

Perhaps a better question would be to ask why the networks (which, as we have illustrated, donate large sums of money to Hillary Clinton) suddenly and without reason, canceled their exit polling for the remaining primaries? Why would they do that? To conserve funds?

That seems unlikely, as exit-polling is big news and actually causes people to tune in. Exit-polling is a huge money maker for these networks, so why cancel when the Democratic race is so close that we cannot even declare a winner without relying on the Super-delegates at the contested Democratic National Convention (sponsored by Comcast).

And what's all this nonsense with Super-delegates? The newspeople showed us the super-delegate totals before they had voted. So why would ALL of the corporate”news” organizations that donate money to Clinton, continue to mislead the American people, by showing the Super-delegate totals when airing the “news”? Don’t the American people deserve to know the actual delegate count?

How can this be taken as anything other than a blatant attempt to mislead voters?

In regard to the DNC and the Democratic primary, the corporate media lied repeatedly by saying Clinton had 3,000,000 more votes than Sanders. The crooked DNC conveniently decided to not count caucus voters and how this allows them to perpetuate this untruth.

Why did tens of thousands of voters go online and show that their Democratic voter registration was switched to Republican or Independent just before voting day (in case you are wondering how Clinton and the DNC would know who is planning on voting for Sanders, this data is acquired through phone-banking. Each candidate knows who each others voters are).

Why did nearly every single one of these disenfranchised voters claim they were intending to vote for Sanders?

How about sudden voter purges that occur right before elections and how the people purged say overwhelmingly that they were planning on voting for Sanders, when interviewed?

How about explaining to me the nature of closed primaries that deny Independent voters their basic constitutional right to vote?

How about the intense hypocrisy of Clinton and the DNC to expect that those same people who were refused their right to vote in their state primary, should then turn around and throw their support behind the very party that refused them their right to vote (“BUT HEY!! IF YOU DON’T THEN TRUMP WILL WIN!!!”)

There is a preponderance of evidence to support the claims of election fraud on the part of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that it is less of a question of whether there is actual fraud and more a question of why anyone would choose to deny the obvious at this point.

It is obvious. The election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency of he US is apparently worth the cost of destroying American Democracy.

The Bernie people aren’t crazy. They’re outraged.

When Democracy comes under attack it is the duty of citizens to defend it. If you believe this election has been conducted fairly, then you are choosing to remain ignorant of the facts.

Electing Hillary Clinton at the cost of American Democracy is a travesty.

Trump was right. The game is rigged.


No comments:

Post a Comment