TIDBIT: MORE ON THE VOTER FRAUD STORY

11 Comments

1. sbda on February 23, 2017 at 11:29 pm

   Greg Pallast is a start…but don’t stop there. Perhaps a consideration should be made about what the vote reg. card and subsequent vote is really about. Proxies. Blocks of traded stakeholder interest in saying, “Yes, we still support the system.” It doesn’t take very much participatory consent in a fractional reserve system to bolster marginal equity and acceptance of their liabilities while hiding away our assets.
   By registration, you give consent and jurisprudent support to laws of an admiralty system of incorporated fictional, but immortal “persons.” Far more corporations have utilized the “Bill of Rights,” and 14th Amen. than have flesh and blood victims of what they thought was a “slave” issue.
   Vote fraud starts with a declaration of interest in a debt-based system way before any vote is even cast.

   
   
   
   • Robert Barricklow on February 24, 2017 at 11:25 am

     sbda
     So true.
     It starts with the private cartel’s compound interest
     combined with their economically debt-based system.

     If you do banking;
     make it public banking.

     Systems need to be open-sourced
     NOT closed systems.

     The commons
     NOT enclosures!

     
     
     
   • Robert Barricklow on February 24, 2017 at 1:14 pm

     Also,
     void all properties that were obtained through this fraudulent system. It would be in the high octane atmosphere of trillions upon trillions –

     NULL & VOID
     …given back to the commons/public.

     
     
     
2. Robert Barricklow on February 23, 2017 at 5:34 pm

   They stole it from shill Bernie; but Trump’s guys were the last to steal before the wire. In today’s elections; it s not who steals the most, its who stole at the last possible micro-nano-second.
   Like high speed algorithmic trading; only in votes.

   
   
   
3. marcos toledo on February 23, 2017 at 11:57 am

   To quote a certain professor of Japanese ancestry Donald Trump stole the Presidency fare and square. Hillary thieves weren’t up to the task or Trump’s were better at it.

   
   
   
4. OrigensChild on February 23, 2017 at 10:46 am

   Sources not withstanding it is not easy to bypass the recount activities in states Trump carried where a third party candidate thought she should have received more votes. Based on the reports I read every state in question discovered more anomalies in democratic precincts than republican. When this same candidate did NOT push for recounts on critical states on both left coasts (NY and CA) my suspicion meter when deep into the infra-red zone…

   Frankly, every election we have using electronic voting machines should be considered rife for massive vote fraud… But that story has been covered by many in other venues…

   
   
   
   • OrigensChild on February 23, 2017 at 11:22 am

     Now with regards to the hacking meme, there is this story. Again, consider the source….

     http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/exclusive-obamas-feds-tried-to-hack-indianas-election-system-while-pence-was-governor/

     
     
     
     • Lost on February 23, 2017 at 12:47 pm

       Osigen’s

       What is The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group?

       
       
       
   • Lost on February 23, 2017 at 12:45 pm

     O:

     There are huge anomalies in the Michigan vote, Hillary likely won.

     But we’ll never know.

     And Wisconsin and PA are less clear.

     It’s preposterous to imply that recounting CA or NY would have changed the outcome of the election.

     
     
     
     • OrigensChild on February 23, 2017 at 9:24 pm

       I agree NY and CA would not have changed anything. This was never about improving her votes. It appears to me the contesting of those states by the third party candidate was a two fold operation–to determine the extent of Republican vote fraud and to hide the extent of the Clinton fraud. They would never do this for CA and NY as Clinton was primed to win both states. Perhaps we share similar opinions but differ by extremes…

       
       
       
5. Lost on February 23, 2017 at 8:56 am

   Consider the source:

   The Washington Times defends the US invasion or Iraq. Nor does the “reporting” link the academic work that ostensibly made these findings. Then there’s the other thing about the Wash Times.

   And the Gundert post refers to Hillary Clinton stealing votes in the democratic primary. This isn’t news.