The American presidential race is a con trick
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Now the January, 2008 election: dateline New Hampshire. Zogby International has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. It's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers showed Obama at 42% v. Clinton's 29% - an impossible gap to close in a few days or even weeks. Yet magically it happened. Clinton miraculously snatched victory from certain defeat with 39% of the vote to Obama's 36% with the loser saying no more than "I am still fired up and ready to go." Where to he should ask after this type reversal with obvious grim signs for his hopes.
Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one glaring exception. Something to ponder and question.
On the Republican side, something fishy happened as well to its one outlier - Ron Paul. The candidate's "war room" hand count showed he got 15% of the vote, but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when electronically tabulated votes were included. His web site said he scored 10% or better in every township and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from 34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire's vote for a third place finish.
Another disturbing report also emerged. The town of Sutton admitted it voided all Paul votes. He got 31, but none made the official tally. It was blamed on "human error" that might account for a slight variance but highly unlikely to erase his entire total. Yet it did and raises strong suspicions of fraud. Once this information got out, other districts where Paul scored zero changed their final count adding votes for him never counted. Something clearly is rotten in New Hampshire. It doesn't say much for the process ahead, or past ones either for that matter.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7770
Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one glaring exception. Something to ponder and question.
On the Republican side, something fishy happened as well to its one outlier - Ron Paul. The candidate's "war room" hand count showed he got 15% of the vote, but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when electronically tabulated votes were included. His web site said he scored 10% or better in every township and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from 34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire's vote for a third place finish.
Another disturbing report also emerged. The town of Sutton admitted it voided all Paul votes. He got 31, but none made the official tally. It was blamed on "human error" that might account for a slight variance but highly unlikely to erase his entire total. Yet it did and raises strong suspicions of fraud. Once this information got out, other districts where Paul scored zero changed their final count adding votes for him never counted. Something clearly is rotten in New Hampshire. It doesn't say much for the process ahead, or past ones either for that matter.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7770
US Elections: Just Like the Movies. - by Ramzy Baroud - 2008-01-11
New Hampshire primary scandal: Kucinich calls for recount - by Michael Carmichael - 2008-01-11
Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections - by Stephen Lendman - 2008-01-11
2008 presidential charade promises deepening of government criminality and expansion of war - by Larry Chin - 2008-01-10
Economic Democracy and a Guide to the 2008 Presidential Election - by Richard C. Cook - 2008-01-10
NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama - 2008-01-09
I think the machine has made a big mistake. They've shown thier hand way to early, there's the better part of a year that they have to mold the results, if recognituion of the scam becomes widespread, and relativly speaking it already is, thier machinations will become very obvious. Here's the fly in thier ointment, they have to highlight the event (specticle) of election the rhetoric will become further and further from the observable reality. This may be an entirely different campainge than they forsaw. I see the sloppiness of thier rigging as an indication of how thin they have spread in an attempt to control all aspects of public life. When thay can no longer exercise enough power through the media they will exercise it through the police state, See you in camp this summer folks.haha
New Hampshire primary scandal: Kucinich calls for recount - by Michael Carmichael - 2008-01-11
Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections - by Stephen Lendman - 2008-01-11
2008 presidential charade promises deepening of government criminality and expansion of war - by Larry Chin - 2008-01-10
Economic Democracy and a Guide to the 2008 Presidential Election - by Richard C. Cook - 2008-01-10
NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama - 2008-01-09
I think the machine has made a big mistake. They've shown thier hand way to early, there's the better part of a year that they have to mold the results, if recognituion of the scam becomes widespread, and relativly speaking it already is, thier machinations will become very obvious. Here's the fly in thier ointment, they have to highlight the event (specticle) of election the rhetoric will become further and further from the observable reality. This may be an entirely different campainge than they forsaw. I see the sloppiness of thier rigging as an indication of how thin they have spread in an attempt to control all aspects of public life. When thay can no longer exercise enough power through the media they will exercise it through the police state, See you in camp this summer folks.haha
US Elections: Just Like the Movies.
By Ramzy Baroud
Global Research, January 11, 2008
The United States political process bears an uncanny resemblance to mainstream filmmaking. Elections and speeches are scripted to the letter, politicians put on a tirelessly rehearsed act, catering endlessly to the whims of the target audience. A successful Hollywood filmmaker can't afford to risk raising issues in a way that don't immediately reflect audience sympathies. Good politicians vying for votes are similar in that they speak according to the already existing expectations -- and prejudices -- of the voting public.
Rarely do candidates stand behind a podium without amending or overriding their personal beliefs in return for generating applause. You would hardly hear, for example, of a US presidential candidate getting booed by an audience.
Candidates do not bring fresh principals to the table, but instead shape their views based on what national and local polls tell them matters to the voting public. And what matters is largely manipulated by the media and the state. Their combined scare tactics convinced most Americans of outright falsehoods, such as Saddam's ties to 9/11, his stockpiles of WMDs, the "liberation" of women in Afghanistan, and so forth.
In a healthy democracy, the media is expected to represent the interests of the people -- all the people, while the government serves as a conduit to carry and defend these interests without violating the constitution. But in the age of evangelical fanatics, lobby groups, international corporations and lucrative Iraq contracts, democracy itself can be placed on hold.
Indeed, maintaining the image of a democracy while violating its genuine principles has consumed the efforts of successive US administrations. No other administration, however, has compromised the interest of the American people and flouted the constitution as much as the brazen Bush administration. No wonder Republicans were squarely defeated in the Congressional elections of 2006. Americans clearly voted for change, but change in a system so skilfully corrupt doesn't come easy. The way in which Democrats supported the recent spending bill for 2008, their vacillating stance on Iraq, and their downright hawkish stance on Iran say volumes about their contribution to maintaining the status quo.
Democrats are also bound by the rules of the game. They need the money, media coverage and lobbyists. Currently there are 35,000 registered federal lobbyists representing all sorts of special interests, including foreign powers such as Israel, whose collaborative role in the Iraq fiasco is too blatant to overlook.
Barack Obama, who does indeed have little experience of understanding how the system works still possesses a talent for pleasing the crowd. Thus his initial assertion that lobbyists "won't work in my White House". Then, possibly after being told by his campaign managers that special interests are more influential than the rest of the country, he tweaked his vow slightly whereby lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House." Although his pledge changed its substance almost entirely, he was able to receive victory in Iowa.
For now, analysts can extract temporary comfort from the prevailing interpretation of the Iowa caucuses' results. Obama was elected by the Democratic caucuses with 37 per cent because he was the only nominee that managed to present a truly new message -- that he and only he can advocate real "change". As for former Arkansas governor, Republican Mike Huckabee, he was the best possible candidate to represent the Republican voters' conservative concerns. The former Baptist pastor is the rising star of the Christian evangelicals who boast 40 million followers, all tied by an outrageous message of doomsday.
Rev Stan Moody of the Christian Policy Institute, writes, "Huckabee is a Rapturist" in reference to the mid-19th Century interpretation of biblical text which culminated in 1909 as the Scofield Desk Reference Bible. This envisions -- and not metaphorically -- a Greater Israel as a precondition to the return of Christ, who, with the true Christians, will defeat Satanic forces, convert 144,000 Jews and exterminate the rest. It has no Harry Potter twists, but it puts Hollywood horror movies to shame. The actual concern is that this group has cultivated an alliance with the Israeli government since the late 1970s and is a major powerbroker in US foreign policy in the Middle East.
In her article, which appeared in The Jerusalem Post on 3 January, Hilary Leila Krieger reported from Iowa that Huckabee "has also been staunchly supportive of Israel, writing in Foreign Affairs that, 'I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel.' It is a country he has visited several times, leading groups there as well as taking his family."
According to the same article, "Huckabee has drawn on his experience in the Holy Land in making his pitch to voters, which has especially resonated with evangelicals."
With the notable exceptions of Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich, most visible presidential candidates were eager to compromise the interest of their country to guarantee that of Israel's. Clinton and Obama exemplify this. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) wrote, "Obama has always enjoyed strong Jewish support since entering state politics in Illinois in 1996, although some in the pro-Israel establishment are wary of his calls to negotiate with rogue states such as Syria and Iran." JTA, of course, nonchalantly substitute the word 'Zionist' for 'Jewish', but that's another story.
While supporting Israel, right or wrong, is business as usual for US politicians, Huckabee's advent -- described as the "second coming" of Ronald Reagan by a producer at an Iowa TV station, is the truly alarming trend. He cannot simply be dismissed as a lunatic Armageddonist who thinks that he can win an election; he actually captured the Republican endorsement in Iowa.
Huckabee knows well how to carry the momentum to the next destination -- he needs to keep up the religious fervour, as narrow-minded and irrational as it may be. We are told that this is what voters are expecting. To win, like a good filmmaker, Huckabee must deliver.
Life can indeed resemble the movies, but in the case of US elections the movie has become so familiar and predictable that it's no longer even entertaining.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
By Ramzy Baroud
Global Research, January 11, 2008
The United States political process bears an uncanny resemblance to mainstream filmmaking. Elections and speeches are scripted to the letter, politicians put on a tirelessly rehearsed act, catering endlessly to the whims of the target audience. A successful Hollywood filmmaker can't afford to risk raising issues in a way that don't immediately reflect audience sympathies. Good politicians vying for votes are similar in that they speak according to the already existing expectations -- and prejudices -- of the voting public.
Rarely do candidates stand behind a podium without amending or overriding their personal beliefs in return for generating applause. You would hardly hear, for example, of a US presidential candidate getting booed by an audience.
Candidates do not bring fresh principals to the table, but instead shape their views based on what national and local polls tell them matters to the voting public. And what matters is largely manipulated by the media and the state. Their combined scare tactics convinced most Americans of outright falsehoods, such as Saddam's ties to 9/11, his stockpiles of WMDs, the "liberation" of women in Afghanistan, and so forth.
In a healthy democracy, the media is expected to represent the interests of the people -- all the people, while the government serves as a conduit to carry and defend these interests without violating the constitution. But in the age of evangelical fanatics, lobby groups, international corporations and lucrative Iraq contracts, democracy itself can be placed on hold.
Indeed, maintaining the image of a democracy while violating its genuine principles has consumed the efforts of successive US administrations. No other administration, however, has compromised the interest of the American people and flouted the constitution as much as the brazen Bush administration. No wonder Republicans were squarely defeated in the Congressional elections of 2006. Americans clearly voted for change, but change in a system so skilfully corrupt doesn't come easy. The way in which Democrats supported the recent spending bill for 2008, their vacillating stance on Iraq, and their downright hawkish stance on Iran say volumes about their contribution to maintaining the status quo.
Democrats are also bound by the rules of the game. They need the money, media coverage and lobbyists. Currently there are 35,000 registered federal lobbyists representing all sorts of special interests, including foreign powers such as Israel, whose collaborative role in the Iraq fiasco is too blatant to overlook.
Barack Obama, who does indeed have little experience of understanding how the system works still possesses a talent for pleasing the crowd. Thus his initial assertion that lobbyists "won't work in my White House". Then, possibly after being told by his campaign managers that special interests are more influential than the rest of the country, he tweaked his vow slightly whereby lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House." Although his pledge changed its substance almost entirely, he was able to receive victory in Iowa.
For now, analysts can extract temporary comfort from the prevailing interpretation of the Iowa caucuses' results. Obama was elected by the Democratic caucuses with 37 per cent because he was the only nominee that managed to present a truly new message -- that he and only he can advocate real "change". As for former Arkansas governor, Republican Mike Huckabee, he was the best possible candidate to represent the Republican voters' conservative concerns. The former Baptist pastor is the rising star of the Christian evangelicals who boast 40 million followers, all tied by an outrageous message of doomsday.
Rev Stan Moody of the Christian Policy Institute, writes, "Huckabee is a Rapturist" in reference to the mid-19th Century interpretation of biblical text which culminated in 1909 as the Scofield Desk Reference Bible. This envisions -- and not metaphorically -- a Greater Israel as a precondition to the return of Christ, who, with the true Christians, will defeat Satanic forces, convert 144,000 Jews and exterminate the rest. It has no Harry Potter twists, but it puts Hollywood horror movies to shame. The actual concern is that this group has cultivated an alliance with the Israeli government since the late 1970s and is a major powerbroker in US foreign policy in the Middle East.
In her article, which appeared in The Jerusalem Post on 3 January, Hilary Leila Krieger reported from Iowa that Huckabee "has also been staunchly supportive of Israel, writing in Foreign Affairs that, 'I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel.' It is a country he has visited several times, leading groups there as well as taking his family."
According to the same article, "Huckabee has drawn on his experience in the Holy Land in making his pitch to voters, which has especially resonated with evangelicals."
With the notable exceptions of Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich, most visible presidential candidates were eager to compromise the interest of their country to guarantee that of Israel's. Clinton and Obama exemplify this. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) wrote, "Obama has always enjoyed strong Jewish support since entering state politics in Illinois in 1996, although some in the pro-Israel establishment are wary of his calls to negotiate with rogue states such as Syria and Iran." JTA, of course, nonchalantly substitute the word 'Zionist' for 'Jewish', but that's another story.
While supporting Israel, right or wrong, is business as usual for US politicians, Huckabee's advent -- described as the "second coming" of Ronald Reagan by a producer at an Iowa TV station, is the truly alarming trend. He cannot simply be dismissed as a lunatic Armageddonist who thinks that he can win an election; he actually captured the Republican endorsement in Iowa.
Huckabee knows well how to carry the momentum to the next destination -- he needs to keep up the religious fervour, as narrow-minded and irrational as it may be. We are told that this is what voters are expecting. To win, like a good filmmaker, Huckabee must deliver.
Life can indeed resemble the movies, but in the case of US elections the movie has become so familiar and predictable that it's no longer even entertaining.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
It's a concept Zzarchov, and it rarely rises above concept into reality. Certainly dosen't in American federal politics, and certainly not in this round. If you'll check that christians own words you'll discover for yourself that he serves god first, Isreal second, and the the United States third, and people dead last.
So what? If alot of other American's think the same way and they deserve a vote and a say in government just the same.
Thats democracy. People you don't like, who think you are dead wrong (as you think about them) having a say in government just like you.
And that really bothers you, the thought of people not like you being able to speak their mind and participate in their own governance.
You have this totalitarian tone in all your posts that if people don't agree with your new world order they deserve to be imprisoned for daring to have independant thought.
Thats democracy. People you don't like, who think you are dead wrong (as you think about them) having a say in government just like you.
And that really bothers you, the thought of people not like you being able to speak their mind and participate in their own governance.
You have this totalitarian tone in all your posts that if people don't agree with your new world order they deserve to be imprisoned for daring to have independant thought.
darkbeaver
No, dear Beaver, dribble or dribbling refers to the maneuvering of a ball around a defender.
Something you get when you're older is called dripple, like when you fart when you have diarrhea and a little wet turd slips out!
Well don't you worry Zzarchov because I have yet to see an independent thought from you, I think I can safely save some prison space and let you do the free range thing without to much worry on my part.:lol:
darkbeaverNo, dear Beaver, dribble or dribbling refers to the maneuvering of a ball around a defender.
Something you get when you're older is called dripple, like when you fart when you have diarrhea and a little wet turd slips out!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahh
European press: It wasn't a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote
by Michael Carmichael
The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines. In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.
According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.
Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.
The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.
In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security.
by Michael Carmichael
The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines. In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.
According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.
Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.
The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.
In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security.
I wonder if she knows about the rigging? If I were her, I would step out of the race... would be too ashamed!
You're kidding right that thing has no shame, does not even know how to spell it, never had such a thought in all her rotten days.;-)
When wanting to know about what really is going on in US politics, I always make sure I read the Italian media.
Well, what Carter says has some merit, and their last election was a bit iffy. it's sure to raise some eyebrows and i'm sure the republicans will jump on this even if it isn't entirely true.
"The Diebold Effect": Hillary's Votes Higher From Diebold Machines Even Controlling for Demographics (education, income, population, etc)
To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary's votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.
Posted Jan 16, 2008 08:06 AM PST
Category: VOTE FRAUD
PAYPAL SCREWS GRANNIES
I am informed directly by the Granny Warriors that PayPal did in fact freeze the funds earmarked for the Recount Fees! So, now you know who to blame for the failure to get a recount of the New Hampshire vote count. PayPal. The application for a recount of the New Hampshire vote required a deposit of $55,600 to the New Hampshire Secretary of State no later than 3:00 P.M. this afternoon, January 15th. A huge and successful effort by the Granny Warriors raised the money and they ordered the transfer to the Secretary. However, at the very last moment, PayPal FROZE THE ACCOUNT and did not transfer the money. The deadline for payment of the deposit passed and the recount application was rejected for lack of payment.
Posted Jan 16, 2008 08:03 AM PST
Category: VOTE FRAUD
To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary's votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.
Posted Jan 16, 2008 08:06 AM PST
Category: VOTE FRAUD
PAYPAL SCREWS GRANNIES
I am informed directly by the Granny Warriors that PayPal did in fact freeze the funds earmarked for the Recount Fees! So, now you know who to blame for the failure to get a recount of the New Hampshire vote count. PayPal. The application for a recount of the New Hampshire vote required a deposit of $55,600 to the New Hampshire Secretary of State no later than 3:00 P.M. this afternoon, January 15th. A huge and successful effort by the Granny Warriors raised the money and they ordered the transfer to the Secretary. However, at the very last moment, PayPal FROZE THE ACCOUNT and did not transfer the money. The deadline for payment of the deposit passed and the recount application was rejected for lack of payment.
Posted Jan 16, 2008 08:03 AM PST
Category: VOTE FRAUD
I am kind of enjoying that little conspiracy although it is just that. Election Rigging has become a cry of the Democrat Party everytime they lose an election. There will NEVER be another GOP Candidate elected President without someone saying that some state rigged the election.
What is funny is watching them use the tactics on each other!
Do I think Hillary did it? Of course not...she won fair and squar. Now the Obama camp is mad and has just as many whackos as the Clinton camp.
What is funny is watching them use the tactics on each other!
Do I think Hillary did it? Of course not...she won fair and squar. Now the Obama camp is mad and has just as many whackos as the Clinton camp.
Science isn't on your side EagleSmack, Clinton is a democrat she didn't complain, not a squeek out of any of them, it's fixed mate, get over it, you don't live in a democracy. No international election oversite organization will certify an American federal election, including ex-president Carters outfit, and that's for years. Quess why? the tactics are being used on the voters Smack, this is not candidate on candidate, it's bankers on voters, a chimp could run and win, another Bush could run and win.
Sorry Beav...it is what it is...a democracy...the type of government you loathe in your perpetual yet fruitless quest for a Worker's Paradise...i.e Socialism. The Obama camp is crying fraud as Democrats often do when they lose. Nobody called fraud when the Democrats swept both houses. Funny isn't it?
It is SO Candidate vs. Candidate... Clinton vs. Obama. Whiners vs. Whiners.