RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Fitrakis writes: "Dear Mr. Holland: After studying and assessing your work this semester, it is with deep regret that I have to inform you that you failed Political Science Statistics 101."

Joshua Holland of <em>The Nation</em>. (photo: The Nation)
Joshua Holland of The Nation. (photo: The Nation)

Joshua Holland, The Nation's Truth Nazi, Needs to Calm Down

By Bob Fitrakis, Reader Supported News

19 May 16


ear Mr. Holland: After studying and assessing your work this semester, it is with deep regret that I have to inform you that you failed Political Science Statistics 101.

As you know, you have characterized us as “conspiracy theorists” because in our Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft, Harvey Wasserman and I have suggested that exit polls matter. You have also publicly denounced our colleague Richard Charnin, who has two separate Master’s degrees in Applied Mathematics, for his analysis of this year’s primary exit poll results versus election results.

Since you show so little interest in statistical analysis, let me briefly go over what you should know:

First of all, exit polls are the accepted international standard for indications of election fraud and vote tampering. Here I refer you to Eric Bjornlund and Glenn Cowan’s 2011 pamphlet, Vote Count Verification: a User’s Guide for Funders, Implementers and Stakeholders. Their work, done under the auspices of Democracy International for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), outlines how exit polling is used to ensure free and fair elections.

“U.S.-funded organizations have sponsored exit polls as part of democracy assistance programs in Macedonia (2005), Afghanistan (2004), Ukraine (2004), Azerbaijan (2005), the West Bank and Gaza Strip (2005), Lebanon (2005), Kazakhstan (2005), Kenya (2005, 2007), and Bangladesh (2009), among other places,” the pamphlet states.

When election results do not match exit poll results, we should not simply accept these results. What Charnin does, which he has been doing for many years, is study improbable election results that fall statistically outside the “margin of error” (MoE).

For example, Ohio primary exit polls indicated that Clinton would win 51.4% to Sanders’ 47.6%. She was expected to win by 3.8%. The actual vote indicated she won 56.5% to 43%. Clinton won the election by 13.8% which was 10 percentage points more than the exit polls indicated.

Statistics tell us that the correct Ohio MoE was 3.12% based on N=1670 respondents. There is a 0.1% probability that the 5.1% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote was due to chance. Therefore there is a 99.9% probability that the official Ohio primary results were improbable.

These results should trigger further investigative analysis.

Take a look at Charnin’s statistics in this post for Democratic primary MoE and probability calculations.

Please tell me, Mr. Holland, where Charnin’s wrong – and show your math.

If these results happened in the Ukraine in 2004, the U.S. State Department would be denouncing the election as fraudulent and demanding an investigation or a revote. By the way, this did happen in 2004. You may recall the Orange Revolution when Ukrainian people took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election. Unlike Mr. Holland and some of his peers, Ukrainians care about stolen elections.

Why is this important? Obviously, if you don’t understand or accept exit polling and can’t analyze poll results versus election results, you won’t recognize election tampering. And that’s what those who would tamper with elections are counting on.

What you have failed to do is study and attend classes where we went over the basic acronym HISMISTER, which provides basic guidelines to determine if a poll is valid.

H = Historical intervention. Did an unexpected historical event affect the results? In an exit poll, voters are asked how they voted as they leave the polls. There is generally no time for a historical intervention to happen between casting a vote and telling the pollsters outside the polling site how you voted.

I = Instrumentation. Were the correct instruments used? If the pollsters asked who people voted for in the presidential race, we assume they were using the correct survey instrument. However, if the voting machines did not record the correct votes, that could cause a discrepancy in the corresponding election results. See “R” below.

S = Sample. Was the sample of voters polled randomized and representative of the demographics of the state? The problem with your work is that you never offer any example for why the exit polls are wrong. You have never taken issue with the pollster’s sample.

Also, while you denounce Charnin’s analysis, you never point out how or why his math is wrong based on standard statistical probability.

M = Measurement. Were the same identifiers studied in the comparison? In this case, the pollsters asked voters who they voted for in the presidential race and those numbers were compared to presidential election results. This would not appear to be a problem.

I = Implementation. Were the procedures used to collect, organize and analyze the data done correctly? If the exit pollsters went to the right precincts and used the correct sample based on the right demographics, we assume the implementation was correct.

S = Survey. Did the survey, or poll, reflect the correct methodology? There has been no challenge to the exit pollsters’ methodology.

T = Technique. Was the poll conducted in an unbiased professional manner? Generally polls are conducted by well-paid professional pollsters.

E = Errors. Are there unexplained unintentional human errors? For example, a poll worker or election official incorrectly enters voting data.

R = Recording. If applicable, did the instruments record the information correctly? When voting machines and central tabulators record different information than what voters are telling exit pollsters, then we must check to make sure our instruments recorded the vote correctly. And we must check to make sure that no one tampered with or rigged the recorded numbers.

On this section, I must give you a zero. There is a more likely than not probability that either faulty instrumentation or election tampering played a role in the improbable official election results. The United States fails basic standards of transparency because there’s no way to verify the actual vote total. Your blind faith in nontransparent voting equipment that is manufactured and programmed by private, partisan, for-profit corporations using secret proprietary software is inexcusable.

Here’s the correct answer: “We can’t verify the vote because seven states – Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia use Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines, i.e., computer voting without paper trails. In 18 other states, DREs are used with paper trails – generally a small piece of paper not designed to be recounted. In virtually all other states, private tabulators secretly record the vote.

I was an international election observer for El Salvador’s 1994 presidential election. Had the ARENA Party said that the votes would be counted on machines built by their friends in private industry and tabulated on computers belonging to major donors of their party, my report would have been simple to write: The election is assumed to be fraudulent due to non-transparency and lack of auditing accountability.

Corporate for-profit media – CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, etc. – claim that the official vote count must always be right. As a journalist you should be skeptical of these claims. What these media gatekeepers are telling us are that the universal laws of statistics apply everywhere in the world except in the United States. They would have us believe that when Clinton repeatedly beat Sanders by implausible numbers we are expected to lack an understanding of basic statistics and accept the improbable. They tell us not to pay attention to the technicians behind the curtain secretly programming the DREs and central vote tabulators.

With a legal suit looming that demanded both adjusted and unadjusted exit polls be made public after the California primary, we just learned that Edison Research has canceled exit polls for all the remaining primaries. Edison has a monopoly on all exit polling for the mainstream media consortium.

We have now lost what Bjornlund and Cowan call “… an effective method for projecting election results.”

Professor Bob Fitrakis is co-author, with Harvey Wasserman, of the newly-published Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft. Fitrakis has a Ph.D. in Political Science and a J.D., and has taught Political Science for 35 years. He was an international election observer in El Salvador’s 1994 presidential election. He co-wrote and edited the International Election Observer report to the United Nations. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+82 # Buddha 2016-05-19 12:41
That the Nation, putatively one of the most liberal and non-corporate-m ainstream journals out there, is telling everyone not to look behind the curtain of our non-transparent election system and to just take it on blind faith that our votes aren't being manipulated, is really shocking. WTF?
+48 # Radscal 2016-05-19 16:08
And The Nation officially endorsed Sanders.

Of course, The Nation is owned and run by Katrina vanden Huevel, who has been on MS-DNC recently, giving advice for how Hillary Clinton can win over Sanders supporters.

It should be known that Katrina's father was CIA. In fact, he was trained in the dark arts by none other than Wild Bill Donovan.
+71 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-19 17:02
There is only one way that Hillary Clinton can win over Bernie supporters and that is for her to drop out of the race and endorse Bernie Sanders!
+16 # lorenbliss 2016-05-19 23:01
@grandlakeguy, who wrote...

"There is only one way that Hillary Clinton can win over Bernie supporters and that is for her to drop out of the race and endorse Bernie Sanders!"

This may be the best on-line comment I've ever seen. Ever!

Thank you.
+1 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 00:13
Thank YOU lorenbliss!
+24 # 2016-05-19 17:57
Keep in mind that vanden Huevel is an extremely vocal opponent of the estate tax due to the great wealth she would, or did, inherit from her father.

She has also been totally dismissive of "9/11 truthers" as being part of a ridiculous "conspiracy theory."
+26 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-19 19:22
Yes, they are very harsh in their defense of the official version of 9/11.

They always advertised that "No one owns the Nation" in trying to look independent.
I have to wonder who REALLY owns the Nation and why do they cling to concepts that protect election thieves and the REAL criminals behind the events of 9/11 whomever they may be.
+3 # tigerlillie 2016-05-19 22:10
She has also been totally dismissive of "9/11 truthers" as being part of a ridiculous "conspiracy theory."

That probably means she is in it up to her wars, ha ha.
+20 # tigerlillie 2016-05-19 18:03
Hey. My father was CIA. I hope that doesn't
implicate me of something awful.
+20 # Radscal 2016-05-19 19:04

Well, that depends. ;-)

All seriousness aside, I had a good friend whose dad was CIA. Not all of them are bad, and not everything CIA does is evil.

Sorry, that's as close to an endorsement as I can muster.
+12 # tigerlillie 2016-05-19 21:47
Yeah, that is a tough one. My father was not from the Dulles camp.
+71 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-19 17:04
I discontinued my subscription to the Nation 15 years ago because they refused to ever discuss the topic of our elections being stolen by rigged voting machines.
+12 # lorenbliss 2016-05-19 23:09
@grandlakeguy: one of the ugly truths of USian journalism is that -- save only under the rarest conditions (e.g., those that supported the founding of the original Village Voice) -- no publication can succeed without what might be termed the Gaponichka factor: what Okhrana agent Father Gapon was to the original Bloody Sunday, what the CIA's Gloria Steinem was to "Ms," etc. ad nauseam.

In other words, any time an allegedly radical print publication succeeds in the U.S., it's either been co-opted or it was a front organization from the very beginning.

This is obviously NOT true of on-line organizations, which by their electronic nature are liberated from the genuinely prohibitive production costs of producing a printed journal.

Thus the Internet has indeed resurrected alternative journalism -- RSN is one of the world's best examples -- though it is far more insecure than traditional print because it can be shut down literally by the flick of a governmental switch.
+3 # Radscal 2016-05-21 11:17
"what the CIA's Gloria Steinem was to "Ms,"

Thank you! Hardly anyone knows that Steinem was CIA as far back as 1959.

I agree the internet has opened a window for independent journalism. We still need to be cautious though. I read an article several years ago showing the funding sources for a large number of "alternative" news websites, and a shockingly high number are funded by the same 0.01% who own corporate media, or are getting huge grants from CIA front groups (as did Ms. magazine).
+27 # dimenson 2016-05-19 14:54
If voting mattered at all it would be illegal. I've said this before on this forum and received negative feedback but, here goes: The electoral system is subverted and corrupt; period. The evidence is glaringly apparent. Anyone who participates, that is; votes, is actually doing harm because they legitimize the (corrupt) process and validate the (bullshit) result.
Does anyone here really believe that those invisible, unaccountable lever-pullers who make the decisions that most profoundly affect us all would just give up their positions of power because we voted them out?? If so, try telling that to the Greek people who voted "Hell No" and watched their "vote" tossed out on it's ass in less than than 24 hours. Those that try to explain away what should be glaringly obvious to everyone are pathetic and nauseating; most troubling however, are those that just dutifully check the boxes as if nothing's wrong.
+87 # Radscal 2016-05-19 16:32
On the one hand, elections have clearly been rigged for as long as there have been elections.

On the other hand, if the 0.01% really didn't care about our votes, they wouldn't work so hard to disenfranchise some of us and then flip our votes. Clearly, they still fear our votes.

It has appeared that flipping elections have only occurred when the votes were close.

So, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. I see no benefit in self-disenfranc hising. The 0.01% would like nothing more than to be able to say we're all apathetic about what they do.

But, if enough of us are clearly voting one way, and then we see our votes reversed, maybe we'd finally get pissed off enough to do something about it.
+34 # Farafalla 2016-05-19 17:24
Wish I could give you more than one thumbs up for that comment. You are absolutely right!
+3 # dascher 2016-05-20 06:16
Flipping elections is only necessary when the usual tactics (derision in the press, arrests of supporters, press blackouts, overwhelming advertising, etc.) fail to lead to the desired results. Some people claim that if you don't vote (participate) then you cannot complain about the outcome. In fact, it is the opposite. If you DO participate in a rigged contest then you cannot complain about the outcome being 'unfair' afterwards. You should complain before - and if the rules don't get changed beforehand to make the process fair, then you have the moral right to not participate and to continue to denounce the process and the outcome.
+5 # fletch1165 2016-05-20 09:57
We've been complaining for decades and decades. When a candidate like Bernie comes you vote for him period. All citizens whether they vote or not pay taxes and have a right to complain about how the money is misspent. Even if its just sales tax they pay taxes.
+1 # Capn Canard 2016-05-20 08:11
The major problem is that the very act of voting gives them the legitimacy of ruling over us with an iron fist. It won't be long before someone like Drumpf or HRC is elected with 100% of the vote(no exiting polling, please) and then she can implement something like complete ACA health care that we will be required to pay for... oh, wait.

America is little better than a banana republic.
+6 # fletch1165 2016-05-20 09:55
Exactly. They can only steal a close election. If its a landslide and they do, they know revolt is coming, even possible violence. They may want it, but I doubt it. It would destroy the economy entirely.
0 # Capn Canard 2016-05-20 08:03
This is why the none of the above option may be the best choice, however even that is still voting. There is this opinion of a Michael E. Smith:

It is just an idea.
+34 # 666 2016-05-19 15:12
Great article. Once again validating the idea that the whole system is absolutely and totally corrupt.
+38 # Radscal 2016-05-19 16:20
I'm thrilled to see RSN run this article. I've been following Mr. Charnin's analyses of exit polling on these primaries. The official results have been outside of the margin of error in something like 18 states. In about 10 of them, they have been two to five TIMES off from the exit polls.

In all but one case, the official results' variance favored Hillary Clinton.

The odds of this are 90 million to one!

Here's an interview with Charnin on Debbie, "The Sane Progressive's" video channel:

And here's his website (last month).
+14 # Dust 2016-05-19 16:28
And so what do we do about it? I mean, other than go postal in some sense...
+33 # Radscal 2016-05-19 17:29
Some groups are suing election boards right now. I saw the lawyer for the NY voters who were scrubbed off the voter rolls. He said the case will take a year!

I would LOVE for the Sanders campaign to officially challenge these results. Clearly, many of his supporters see it and are very upset about it.
+13 # Dust 2016-05-19 18:42
WORD! Absolutely!!
+16 # Majikman 2016-05-19 18:54
Agree, Radscal. Once a stolen election is affirmed by a court, the thief loses tremendous credibility and support and the bully pulpit is watered down. Nixon's "I am not a crook" didn't save his lying ass anymore than it will if this election is stolen.
+49 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-19 17:16
I have followed the excellent work of Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman for over ten years. In fact Mr. Fitrakis gave a presentation on the subject at the Grand Lake Theater back in the Bush years. (Not Bush the First but Bush the Worst!)
it has been painfully obvious for quite some time that our elections are merely "election theater" and the American people's selections have very little if not nothing to do with the actual "official" results.
To learn more about their work visit their website at:

Then type in "stolen elections" in the search bar on the upper right and you will find an absolute wealth of material on this subject.

What can we do about this? Nothing, until we have an honest leader in this country who will shine a spotlight on the treason that is our fraudulent election charade.
Where ever might we find such an unlikely to exist person, an honest politician? Could his name possibly be Bernie?

We need to have a system of hand counted paper ballots with the results being tallied in public with observers from any interested party and the totals posted at local levels.
We would not have the "results" within minutes of the polls closing but within a reasonable time we would instead receive RESULTS!

All ballots must be preserved for a reasonable time for examination or recounts and there should be draconian prison sentences for anyone caught manipulating any election.
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-21 17:32
Great website, GLG. Thanks.
+17 # tigerlillie 2016-05-19 18:11
Thank you everyone for all this. My state has never had exit polls, and I was dragged kicking and screaming through grad sch statistics for dummies 101, so I have learned a great deal today.
+8 # economagic 2016-05-19 18:51
I FEEL YOUR PAIN -- the only math I've ever taken that didn't seem reasonable the first time through and "obvious" soon after! That's not to say that I had mastered all the tricks the second time through: That takes much longer. But by the second time through a new concept I had a mental map with connections to other things I knew, from which I could go on to working through all the inscrutable details.

But Stats was different, because it IS different from any other math I know of. Later, after teaching the intro course (fortunately to people who really should not have been in the class), I discovered Larry Gonick's "Cartoon Guide to Statistics," which made it all clear. Find a copy and work through it at your leisure, paying special attention to the chapter on "probability distributions." I am 99.44 percent sure (Ivory Soap number) you will be glad you did.
+4 # Radscal 2016-05-19 19:10
I LOVE Larry Gonick. I've never seen his book on statistics, though. I'll go get one. Thanks.
+8 # economagic 2016-05-19 19:15
Elementary, but much clearer than most textbooks. I showed it to our grossly overqualified chemistry adjunct, a man of few words who just loved to teach. His comment: "They shouldn't let statisticians write statistics books." I agree. They may be worse writers even than economists.
+11 # GenXer 2016-05-19 19:40
If you haven't done so already, please click on the link below to take the Bernie or bust pledge and join the movement of over 102,000 and growing! Basically, the pledge states if Bernie Sanders is not the democratic nominee, you pledge to either write in Bernie's name or vote for the Green Party in the general election.

It's highly recommended that all Bernie or bust pledge takers vote instead for Dr. Jill Stein in the Green Party because NONE of the write in votes for Bernie Sanders will count.

If the Green Party receives at least 5% of the vote in the general election, they may receive up to $100 million dollars in government funding to fund their future campaigns.

After taking the pledge, please share the link on your Facebook and Twitter asking others to do the same.

Thank you.
+1 # Capn Canard 2016-05-20 07:56
My only problem with 'Bernie or bust' is that it may be too late. Not an issue of time, 5 to 6 months is enough to get a majority to write in Sanders, but the issue of electronic voting and tabulation. The issues of primary voting in NY, Ohio, Nevada, etc etc etc have laid bare that we have a serious fuggin problem. It is my belief that even if enough people wrote in Bernie or Jill Stein then DNC and RNC would still get the result that they paid for!

This is a very difficult conundrum. And then we have reprehensible, incompetent people like Joshua Holland who are little more than enablers of the Wealthy. I am shocked that the Nation has fallen so far down that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for writers when the only thing on the bottom is diseased scum.
+13 # Lucretius 2016-05-19 20:16
Shame on Holland Clintonbot! And all the rest of the Clintonites for whom the struggle for democracy no longer counts nor matters. Just admit you now believe in monarchy and coronations!
+2 # Femihumanist 2016-05-19 20:36
I'm sorry to tell you this but since you are discussing inaccurate statistics, you said that percentage point differences were percentage differences.

I didn't bother to check actual numbers to see what other errors there may be.
+2 # Depressionborn 2016-05-19 21:17
I recommend the movie "The Great McGinty". Preston Sturgis at his best. The more things change the more they stay the same?

I could design a foolproof voting system in 5 minutes. But then I am an engineer and a Troll.
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-05-19 22:05
So what you are saying is all the electronic voting systems in use now are deliberately corruptable? Well, now that I think about it, that is the only option that makes sense.
+16 # Radscal 2016-05-19 22:36
Yep. Paper ballots, filled out in pen and hand-counted publicly with witnesses from any interested parties is a technology that wasn't broken, and so didn't need to be fixed.

I learned recently that Ireland bought computer voting machines from this US company. After one test, they got rid of them.

And they didn't sell them so they could be used elsewhere. They didn't even repurpose them. They broke them down and sold the scrap.
+10 # Doc Mary 2016-05-19 22:24
Bravo! Excellent article.

I have this mental image of network coverage election night - Pennsylvania goes for ... Clinton! No, Trump! No, wait a minute, those numbers have changed, it's .. Clinton! No, Trump!

With both sides willing and able to hack into computers, it will be an interesting night.
+8 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-20 00:14
And the tug of war will continue until one candidate or the other gets 100% just like in North Korea's elections.

The question is...will the other then dare to go to 110%?
That is not at all out of the question as we have seen precinct totals exceed the number of registered voters on multiple occasions since the advent of computerized non-verifiable voting systems.

This is the gift of George Bush's HAVA.
The Help America Vote Act
+4 # Capn Canard 2016-05-20 07:45
lol... brilliant grandlakeguy!

Only in America can a candidate get 110%. And I suggest that, for America, it is not out of the realm of possibility. I believe that 'the powers that be' are that arrogant.
+9 # Capn Canard 2016-05-20 07:35
Joshua Holland is worse than incompetent, he is complicit and as such he is an accomplice or co-conspirator of the ruling cabal, the 15 trillion dollar Banksters, who control the United States of America. Of this there is no doubt in my mind. I think back to what Rachel Maddow had once said of "9/11 truthers" and how there was no there, there. Like Holland, she has shown and demonstrated complete journalistic malpractice.

Likewise, the MSM and even the Nation's Holland(sad that the once venerable Nation has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the corrupt MSM storyline) have become tools of the Bankster/Wealth y owners of America. Other than your local weather, there is little to trust in MSM media.

These primary voting results have rarely matched exit polling and that is clearly a sign of stolen elections. And for most people there is only one immediately recognizable face to be seen...

We're looking at you Hillary Clinton.
+1 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 00:19
I remember once watching the Bill Maher show on HBO and there was a 911 truther in the audience that yelled something out.
Maher lost it and went charging into the seating area to find him and threw him out.
-2 # Robbee 2016-05-20 09:13
note the inherent self-contradict ion! -
# grandlakeguy 2016-05-19 17:02
There is only one way that Hillary Clinton can win over Bernie supporters and that is for her to drop out of the race and endorse Bernie Sanders!

- bernie says to vote dem in the general election! - in the same sentence that guy refuses to vote dem, if it's hill, he calls himself a "bernie supporter"! - hence, on the matter of voting hill GUY IS NO BERNIE SUPPORTER! with regard to the very matter in which he calls himself a "bernie supporter", guy is not! - guy follows his own path! - for his own bernie-opposed reasons!

lie! - # Radscal 2016-05-19 19:12
"The only wasted vote is the one cast for a candidate you don't want."

- the only wasted vote is the one not cast for the candidate, the dem, with the only chance to beat the candidate who promises - and is capable, as prez, of delivering on his reactionary promises, to -

1) torture prisoners;
2) kill spouses and children of enemies whom our law says he names;
3) regulate the press;
4) on his first day in office, tear up the iran treaty (that prevents iran from building nukes!);
5) deport 11 million illegals;
6) build a wall clear across mexico;
7) make mexico pay for it (which takes invading and occupying mexico!)
8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", or 3, just like scalia!
+10 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-20 09:36
Absolutely no contradiction here!
Even if at the end of the convention Bernie Sanders asks his supporters to vote for Hillary the Hawk I, and so many others, will never vote for her under any circumstance.
Just because I see Bernie as the vastly better choice does not mean that I will blindly do as he asks if the corrupt Democratic party denies him the nomination.
+7 # kalpal 2016-05-20 09:52
The truly wasted vote is cast for a Guardian Of Privilege
+1 # fletch1165 2016-05-20 14:01
Hillary deported Honduran refugees already. Its proven what she and John Kerry have done in sponsoring the illegal Honduran coup.

She has promised plenty and only delivered for her Goldman Sach's pals. She is endorsed by G.W. Bush's lead neocon advisor Kagan. She is just fine with the firebombing of Gazan babies.

Though Trump is a troll it is unproven what he will do. We know he lies about just about everything. Hillary already has committed countless crimes.

She used a private e-mail server to conduct government business which is a clear felony. She doesn't know better, or wanted corporations and internationals to have the information. She is too dumb in one argument, and too corrupt in the other. She is unelectable. Anyone pushing Hillary is in the closet for Trump because that is who will win if she is nominated, 100%. So choosing Hillary means you prefer Trump over Bernie.
-8 # Robbee 2016-05-20 09:16
rump trojans, pt. 2

10) massive tax cuts for the rich; and
11) register and ground muslims.

pants on fire! half-truth! -
# Radscal 2016-05-19 19:12
"If the DNC denies Sanders their nomination, it will be THEM who help elect Drumpf."

first - it is not certain that bernie will beat rump! that's why we vote! to find out who wins! - however great polls look now! alot! good and bad! will happen by november! - what this means is that there is also no guarantee that if the DNC denies hill their nomination, it will be THEM who help elect Drumpf!

next, the part that may be true, but, if it is, certainly only part true! - "If the DNC denies Sanders their nomination, it will be THEM who *HELP* elect Drumpf." - IN ADDITION TO the DNC, THOSE WHO FAIL TO VOTE DEM WILL ALSO HELP TO ELECT RUMP!

rad, you are a liar! you and guy are rump trojans! you need to stop peddling your rump garbage here! begone trolls! - go dem!
+2 # Radscal 2016-05-21 12:17
Heartless moron repeats propaganda over and over again.

Your lies don't become true just because you keep repeating them.

I sincerely hope that HRC doesn't murder the families of your loved ones. But I know she plans to continue murdering many others, including families of my loved ones.

I will do everything in my power to prevent her from murdering more people.
+1 # f f skitty1947 2016-05-20 13:20
bev harris's excellent docu 'hacking democracy' is still the gold standard if one wants to understand why electronic vote counting must be outlawed in every state.
-2 # Robbee 2016-05-22 00:55
hey! - rad says something we all can agree! # Radscal 2016-05-21 12:17
"... lies don't become true just because (i) keep repeating them."
0 # munza1 2016-05-22 22:33
An excellent well informed and extremely disturbing piece. I'm surprised a bit that no whistleblower or rumor has come to light about the obvious Ohio discrepancies of the past.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.