No friggin way hillary won the primaries…Sanders had it in the bag…'Hillary had like 0 fans…Everyone knew the final election was between trump and sanders…even the feminists didnt back hilllary…
I think there needs to be an investigation, I believe the election results are rigged and fraudulent…
When have they not been?
Yes the elections are rigged. It’s been demonstrated if you compare official vote totals with random sampling people after the leave the voting booth, that Hillary’s final vote totals are much higher than they should be. This was back when she was a senator. Check out my other thread here on this, and the documentary “Hacking Democracy” by HBO. The info is in there about Hillary and discrepancies between official votes and statistically significant polling of voters after the leave the voting booth.
The elections are up for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to e-voting machines. And Bernie obviously isn’t the highest bidder.
That and the Electoral College.
How else could you get a totally fraudulent President in office for two terms?
Obfuscation and Extortion, not “free election”.
We had a totally fraudulent president for 2 terms?
Well duhhhhhhh
ps: I dont support any of the candidates, power is the ultimate illusion…
Sanders supporters sue DNC & Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the system
observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wass … primaries/
rt.com/usa/349277-sanders-l … n-schultz/
Government bureaucratic democracies have always been rigged historically.
That is because we are just like any other animal.
No, other animals are incapable of deception on a human scale.
Human beings are masters of deception concerning the greater animal world and we don’t just deceive others but also ourselves.
You really have never studied nature have you?
What we do is all natural. Not saying it is right ethically or morally on human standards , just saying we have not overcome our natural animal behaviors and instincts. Until we do, ,. well shit happens.
I found this:
I verified the table with tweets from fivethirtyeight.com and PDFs of the first reported exit polling data, also accessible as images. This table was attained through Election Integrity, a Facebook and Google group of over 1,000 people dedicated to uncovering and preventing election fraud. While some confessed that election research and data can be a minefield, they unanimously agreed upon this:
When the exit polls are way off, either the polls are wrong, electoral fraud was committed, or both.
As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. mentioned, research shows that exit polls are almost always spot on. When one or two are incorrect, they could be statistical anomalies, but the more incorrect they are, the more it substantiates electoral fraud.
This is shown by the data, which is extremely suspicious: discrepancies in eight of the sixteen primaries favoring Clinton in voting results over exit polling data are outside of the margin of error. That’s half of them outside the margin of error: 2.3% greater in Tennessee, 2.6% in Massachusetts, 4% in Texas, 4.7% in Mississippi, 5.2% in Ohio, 6.2% in New York, 7% in Georgia, and 7.9% in Alabama.
This is extremely, extremely abnormal.
The margin of error is designed to prevent this, accounting for the difference in percentage totals between the first exit polls and actual voting results for both candidates combined (as noted by the table’s third footnote). For instance, if Hillary Clinton outperforms the exit polls by 2.5% and Bernie Sanders underperforms by 2.5%, and the margin of error is 5%, then the exit poll is exactly on the margin of error. When an exit poll or two is outside of the margin, this denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud.
Keep in mind, these are the discrepancies in favor of Clinton between exit polls and voting results, from lowest to highest: -6.1%, -1.9%, 1.1%, 1.7%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5.2%, 8%, 8.3%, 9.3%, 9.9%, 10%, 11.6%, 12.2%, and a whopping 14%.
The discrepancies alone demand an investigation of electoral fraud. These are not just small, isolated errors, but systemic and alarming differences that point towards Hillary Clinton beating exit polls in an impossible way.
Nevertheless, one may still contend that 1) exit polls are “unreliable” and 2) Bernie supporters are more “enthusiastic” to take exit polls than Clinton supporters.
However, if exit polls were done that poorly, we wouldn’t bother using them in the first place. In addition, they would be all over the place numerically, instead of consistently and considerably skewed towards Hillary Clinton. Besides, exit pollsters are, frankly, not idiots; they’ve had decades to hone, adjust, and perfect their methods, and have many elections to compare results to.
Therefore, they account for any and all unlikely changes, including response bias — the possibility that Bernie supporters are more enthusiastic. Moreover, Donald Trump supporters are arguably more enthusiastic while deriving from a similar anti-establishment base. Since Edison Research compiles the exit polls singlehandedly and the Republican race has easily been more polarizing, divisive, and contentious, one would expect that Republican exit polls would be even more skewed.
Except they haven’t been. They’ve been spot on almost every time.
I was able to find tweets of almost all of the first Republican exit polls from fivethirtyeight.com, PhD student and election tracker Taniel, and CBS live blogs. Here is a table comparing their data and the actual voting results:
If you have more data, feel free to add it in the comments.
In every primary I could find data for, the Republican primaries have been almost exactly right, with every data point in the margin of error, during a more polarizing, contentious, and hard-to-predict race. Hence, this should be enough to prove my point: if exit polls were unreliable, then the Republican primaries would have equally bad exit polling data, but they don’t, not even by a long shot.
It demands an independent investigation, with the nomination results and voting ballots thoroughly, fairly, and properly audited.
medium.com/@spencergundert/hill … .5vhb0a72j
So, interestingly, according to this source Trump hadn’t been hacking the voting machines, or at least the exit polls aren’t reflecting that the GOP primary votes were off by statistically significant amounts.
While encouraging that perhaps Trump isn’t (yet) bought into the rigged elections game, the other side is that this implies the possibility that Trump actually won the GOP primary fair and square-- which is disheartening for the other reason that so many people are actually voting for him.
So to recap:
Hillary is, demonstrably, almost beyond any dispute, hacking voting machines at the margins to slightly tip primary state elections in her favor. Please note that this has also been discussed in the HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy”, which if I remember correctly showed similar and consistent statistical anomalies from her previous elections, presumable for senate.
The evidence so far does not indicate that Trump is similarly hacking the votinf machines. This is both good and bad, of course: good that the vote totals are (probably) accurate, and bad because so many people are being duped by him.
If you had to choose who to live with in a house for the rest of your life which would you choose, Clinton, Trump or some stranger you never heard of?
Stranger, because there is a 50/50 chance they are hot.
I dunno, Hillary is kinda hot in a fetishy kind of way.
Well at least we know your priorities.
Don’t make a mistake.
The only priority I have concerning Hillary, is getting her out of office.
Yes, Trump should probably win, since he is at least a legitimate candidate. Supposedly he is winning the real way, by people actually voting for him… unlike Hillary who is winning by cheating, hacking into the voting machines.
Although Trump is the legitimate democratic winner and should win on that count, if it was Bernie instead of Hillary then in a Bernie vs Trump contest, I think Bernie would easily win hands down.