Polls were successful at predicting Clinton’s numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote:
pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines.
Soros has openly admitted creating & backing revolutionary political groups in Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Slovakia & the former Yugoslavia. Most of these groups have or had as their stated goals the destabilization & regime change of the countries in which they are or were based.
Soros’ spending is not only related to his partisan political leanings. Soros has his sights set on the dollar. For decades, Soros’ Open Society Foundations has funded all manner of liberal, progressive & even Socialist causes that have driven deep cultural divisions into U.S.
In the 2016 election, Soros is attempted to sway huge numbers of overseas voters for Clinton through the activist Avaaz organization, which he heavily supports. In 2008, Canadian minister of Transport John Baird called Avaaz a “shadowy foreign organization.”
Soros’ investments are linked to funds or financial vehicles that benefit from the destabilization or collapse countries, & the U.S. is no different for Soros. In the world of finance, it is called “disaster capitalism,” Soros is probably the world’s leading practitioner of it.
In 1992, Soros famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the British pound, driving down the price and “breaking” the Bank of England’s control over the currency.
Soros was blasted during Congressional testimony for his part in the collapse of the Russian economy in the 1990s through his control over economic advisors to Russian president Boris Yeltsin.
Numerous privatized Russian assets made their way into Soros’ personal portfolio. Jim Leach, then chairman of the House Banking Committee, called Soros’ dealings “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.”
In November 2003, the resignation of Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze was blamed on anti-government activists funded by Soros. Two former executive directors of Soros’ foundation assumed influential roles in the new Georgian government.
Of the events that Fall, Soros said, “I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.”
Organizations financed by Soros promote socialism, drug legalization, UN control of the U.S., abortion rights, radical environmentalism, defense of terrorists, anti-religion, mass immigration, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, socialized medicine & American disarmament.
Soros fingerprints are all over efforts of the Democratic Party in the 2016 election. Soros personally contributed to Hillary Clinton PACs & Super-PACs, he’s funded “social justice warrior” movements such as Black Lives Matter & Millennial Activists United millions of dollars.
Interestingly, information came to light about the Clinton candidacy. Hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation.
One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors.
To examine the possibility that the products linked to these companies had been used to commit electoral fraud, we borrowed the methodology of a paper by Francois Choquette and James Johnson (C&J).
Their paper is based on one of the basic principles in the biological and social sciences: As the amount of data increases, the measurement of the average approaches the ‘true’ average. In other words, as more data is added, the average fluctuates less and less.
What C&J found is that, both in the 2008 and 2012 cycles, this basic principle was violated only in the case of pro-corporate candidates. McCain and Romney kept gaining a greater and greater share of the vote at large precincts, while non-corporate candidates did not.
The explanation C&J provide is that if one person (or multiple people) would aim to hack the vote, they may choose to do it primarily where they can have the most influence and where the fraud would also be the easiest to hide. Essentially, they would hack the bigger precincts.
Using the method described by C&J, we analyzed the Democratic and Republican primaries for Louisiana. The reason why we picked this state is because of the strong discrepancy between the likely voter intent and the reported results (which was 12% in favor for Clinton),....
because of the fact that their statewide data is readily downloadable, and, finally, because each precinct in this state used the same type of electronic voting machine.
hen we looked at the results of the Republican primaries, we did not observe that any candidate kept gaining a larger and larger share of the vote at larger precincts (meaning the lines were relatively stable as precinct size increased).
We looked at Democratic primaries, we observed severe abnormalities. The share of votes Hillary Clinton received kept increasing (to a whopping 25%). This statistical abnormality is seen in almost every parish (county). It does not appear in any parish for the Republican primary:
Louisiana, a state with solely electronic voting, Sanders is the only candidate in either party to face an overwhelming disadvantage at larger precincts. This does not simply reflect an urban vs. rural distinction. There are large precincts in small towns & small city precincts.
Why would voters in larger precincts favor one candidate over the other by such a wide margin? We have been unable to come up with a reasonable psychological or sociological reason that would apply only to voters voting in the Democratic primary.
In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines.
Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor.
Is everyone represented equally in our country? As Jimmy Carter has written, and as Harvard research has shown, the U.S. has turned into an oligarchy. The votes of the rich seem to weigh more than the votes of the poor. Is this the country we want to leave for our children?
You can follow @powerglobalus.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: