2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWill Jerry Brown help steal election for Clinton because he wants position in Clinton Administration
Hasn't Jerry Brown always been the ultimate progressive, fighting against Bill Clinton in the primary, working to expose corrupt elites like the Clintons?
Now it turns out he will endorse Hillary and we are being asked if we support him being in the Clinton Administration.
WTF!!!
Sure California mainly votes by mail, paper ballots....however they are fed through a counting system designed for fraud.
This is how they will steal the election and Americans need to ask why this system is set up for fraud and demand they fix this corrupt system before the primary.
This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, (upcoming) California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512017617
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)isn't involved in the counting or certification process.
But keep smearing Democrats...its bound to be the path to success for Trump
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)June 17th...
PLEASE
Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #1)
Actor This message was self-deleted by its author.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)J_J_
(1,213 posts)Clearly there was a conspiracy to steal our elections.
Why is this a feature in our election counting software?
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)J_J_
(1,213 posts)and now people pretend like election fraud doesn't exist.
reddread
(6,896 posts)hail hail
the new world order
hail hail
electronic demockracy
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)is what its come to.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Every endorser of Bernie is a sacred visionary that has seen the light of His Goodness!
Every endorser of Hillary is a craven, lying, vote-rigging shill who shall be denounced to the Nine Heavens and the Seven Seas!
riversedge
(70,186 posts)good at smearing Trump as they have been at smearing Hillary this last year.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)The Berners here can't bring themselves to do it. I'm not sure some of them even know how to criticize the GOP.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)riversedge
(70,186 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)their man lost
LuvLoogie
(6,992 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)My, my. Better tell those states that haven't had an election yet, that November is not needed. They will save tons of money.
BTW, what a load of f-ing nonsense.
Arkansas Granny
(31,514 posts)PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Jerry Brown just endorsed Hillary Clinton and stated specifically to derail Trump.
Brown was also complimentary of Sanders (who I support but also am realistic).
I would like Brown to have a role in national politics regardless of who is POTUS.
edit: put an "a" in what of title
brown attacked Bernie and all he stands for by endorsing clinton and say she will get more done.she won't do anything progressive
like.
Establishment think we bernie supporters are so stupid they will just vote clinton if they give fake complements to bernie.
Next year with eather CLinton or trump In white house bernie will be one of few who fight the right wing corporate push of
CLinton or trump.
PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)I do not support Clinton because Clinton lacks character and is more about dismantling past Democratic economic victories by favoring neo-liberal and neo-conservative policy and individuals.
I am not as synched with Brown as I was 20 plus years ago. Brown would have made a great POTUS at one time.
In general I agree with you. I don't think Brown would purposely be involved in voting irregularity.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Like Elizabeth warren if he would have waited till after convention i would have said nothing then but he sold out.
Maybe Brown won't do what others have done.
Clinton is almost as dangeras as trump in different ways.her corporate neoliberal agenta aswell as her being a neocon are huge
threat.and way too many dems are fine with her agenda.
dems would have been better off if Brown and not CLinton 1 had won.so this is so disappointing.
PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)
I actively supported Brown for POTUS in 76, 80, and 92.
The 70s-80s versions of Brown (and Ron Dellums) were probably my most favored pols ever as a voter.
I have been far too frequently disappointed in the older Brown and wish that Brown did not endorse Hillary Clinton at all.
Brown differs from most pols in that he has great skills in actual governance.
The younger Brown would have been a great POTUS.
If you read my posts, I have stated time and time again that Clinton is a neo-liberal and a neo-conservative and this is more than enough reason for Clinton to not be POTUS.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Was drawn to him at first but for some time have usually ignored anything Grayson at DU and in general.
I understand why Brown just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
I have usually been consistent my time under this screen name and my original screen name.
Grayson is one exception in that he initially had my support and then I came to usually ignore Grayson posts.
I have no recollection that Grayson endorsed Sanders but could have conceivably noted such but don't recall.
I know that all things being equal that I would tend to support Grayson over a neo-liberal but again Grayson is not a particularly savory character to me.
Grayson is nothing compared to Jerry Brown. Like Brown, I have voted many times for Boxer but was disappointed by what happened in NV. Looked like a set up to me and I do not like Democratic leadership insulting large components of the Democratic party base.
You may have noticed in another thread today that I criticized the NRDC Action Fund endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
Why?
The NRDC (and affiliated) NRDC Action Fund is not the same nor as grassroots as the NRDC of the 1970s and 1980s but has the brand today. More than 85% of the donations to NRDC Action Fund go to NRDCAF W-2 employees that earn more than $200,000 to nearly $500,000 per year as professional environmentalists. This is not in the spirit of the original NRDC. The endorsement buys access. The NRDC provides cover for this access.
I noted that Plan Colombia, Colombia Free Trade, the huge amount Colombia coal mined and exported by privately held Drummond Coal - the largest single beneficiary of Colombia free trade and militarization - , and USA military in Colombia are severely counter to the transition from coal to natural gas to clean renewable energy in Hillary Clinton's environmental policy as stated on the Clinton campaign website and elsewhere.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)All you guys trashing Brown show is that it is not about principle for you but vengeance and peer pressure.
Who can post the most over the top op to look better in the eyes of the Bernie or bust people here.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)He sold out long ago however, he was horrible to Oakland with his support of the police state.
He also supported the police who shot a protester in the head, what a great guy.
reddread
(6,896 posts)that guy and his sister and his dad started out Republicans,
and listening to his sister's failed campaign rhetoric nothing changed
but the label.
lobbying for offshore drilling in MARINE SANCTUARIES?
unbelievable.
family traditions. good thing we arent protesting for free speech. there would be shooting.
http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/archives/la-me-edmund-g-pat-brown-19960217-story.html
think
(11,641 posts)I wish I could say the same about Hillary....
reddread
(6,896 posts)the most violent reprisals to anti-war protests and to peaceful Occupy and student led demonstrations?
Jerry Brown.
sure, they threw a lot of underlings out there to take the blame,
but
figure it out.
Peregrine Took
(7,413 posts)Guy is just weird.
Has he ever smiled or just grinned in his life? Maybe once but I doubt it.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)his aide about anti-war protestors, to let the blood flow in the streets. That was Rotten Ronnie and Meese. Far more violent than what we have evidently not seen in the rest of the country.
reddread
(6,896 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)J_J_
(1,213 posts)Obviously the whole thing is orchestrated to convince Bernie supporters to give it up.
The Dem elite think we just follow party leaders, and since 'progressive' Boxer failed so miserably, they thought maybe Jerry Brown would do better.
WhiteTara
(29,703 posts)She is able to bend all people to her will and they don't have an ounce of personal power to make their own decisions.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)What a coincidence that someone posted this...
Do you think Jerry Brown would make a terrific Attorney General in a Clinton administration?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512093052
WhiteTara
(29,703 posts)then your candidate wouldn't want his endorsement anyway.
thucythucy
(8,045 posts)and someone on Democratic Underground posts an on-line poll, and you see this as evidence of some nefarious quid pro quo?
This place has become very weird indeed.
So if I post an on-line poll here, asking if Susan Sarandon or Alan Grayson might be a good pick for a post in a Bernie administration, you'd see that as evidence of corruption as well?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Anything but face the reality that more Democrats want Hillary to be the nominee than they want Sanders.
Losing sucks, but at some point in time, rational people accept reality.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)J_J_
(1,213 posts)It seems they don't really have the consent of the people.
No one in California really believes that Hillary is leading in the court of public opinion like the corporate media claims with their fake polls.
Remember how they told us Hillary would blowout Sanders in Oregon?
That is called manufacturing consent.
They have to lie because they are stealing the election and it is apparent that no one actually likes Hillary.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And if "they" said Clinton would blow out Sanders in Oregon, then why didn't she? After all, the election is rigged, right?
Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Joob
(1,065 posts)What are the safeguards?
Who are the safeguards?
Who checks all the votes?
Do machines check the votes?
Why don't we have video recording of the whole process in 2016?
We wouldn't have this problem if people didn't want to be secretive about who they vote for. I mean, it's ridiculous if you think about it. You're voting for the leader of your country there should be nothing you should be ashamed of and harassment by anyone should be dealt with by the law.
Then we can just verify a lot easier.
Whatever I'm just throwing out ideas because these voting machines don't sound good at all.
Last idea, and this one I think is okay. After you vote, you get like a receipt of a number that represents how many votes have been counted, you being the most recent, with the time and it shows who you voted for but not your name.
Later you can check on a .gov website to make sure your vote counted for who you voted for, and it'll show all the other numbers.
So you just look for your number, if it's right Great! Awesome! No way it's rigged!
If it's wrong, you have proof!
And use things (just like money) so anything fake would be easily identifible and treat your number like important paperwork.
Voting is serious matter and should be treated seriously. We have the Technology, we have the resources.
That's a very simple idea that would be fullproof. And no one would still know who you vote for, though it's arcane to me why people still want that. It's nothing anyone should be embarassed, threatened or feel bad about.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)Whoever set up this system where we have to 'just trust them' did it for a reason obviously.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)loser.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Though he is not close to the counting, I don't expect my pretend vote to count as cast. That ended this year. It started in 2000...
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)According to too many Sanders supporters:
If Bernie wins, election was fair.
If Bernie loses, ELECTION FRAUD.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)as to why Brown endorsed her.
http://www.thenation.com/article/i-used-to-support-bernie-but-then-i-changed-my-mind/t
They're in there, I promise. The passage on fracktivist overreach is particularly interesting:
But the fracking debate continues to leave permanent scars. Despite the governors historically high approval ratings, the fracktivists take every media opportunity to thrash him personally. They rack up names on online petitions, but so far have failed to gain political traction. Their apocalyptic view has only worsened. In addition to personally attacking Brown, whose approval rating is 56 percent, they have brutally attacked NRDC and establishment environmentalists for not achieving a moratorium in California. Their tactics build their online membership, but turn off or confuse more mainstream Californians.
The Democratic primary may deepen this antagonism and result in defections among Hillary supporters. Hillary wants limits on fracking: a ban where individual states have blocked it, like in New York; safeguards against childrens and family exposures; a ban where releases of methane or contamination of ground water are proven; and full disclosure of the chemicals used in the process. Bernies position is that hes simply against all fracking.
But Hillarys position goes beyond what virtually any state has done. The New York Times writes that she has pledged to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to pay for her ambitious climate plan and intends to install 500 million solar collectors in four years. If and when Obamas Clean Power Plan is upheld in the federal courts, now a likelihood after Justice Scalias death, that will bring a even greater change.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)However, I noticed that Jerry Brown's "endorsement" was as close as he could come to not endorsing. In fact he didn't even endorse her! He only said that the only viable option was to vote for her to stop Trump. Hardly a ringing endorsement. At least he is honest.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrat.
14 more days of this nonsense.
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)voting machines in favor of paper ballots. Don't know if they
have since returned to electronic voting, but paper ballots
are still an option. At the very least there ought to be, by law,
a civilian panel that oversees all voting equipment and processes.
20 Calif. Counties Scrap Electronic Vote Machines
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18672642
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LonePirate
(13,417 posts)It is ludicrous to make this claim against Brown. I think it is even worthy of a hide.
Bernie is a great man but his irrational, unhinged, conspiracy theorizing supporters diverged from reality a long time ago.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)still_one
(92,134 posts)about Jerry Brown, and our obviously are not from California
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)BootinUp
(47,139 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I don't agree with him, but I don't feel the need to smear him just because he has a difft opinion.
senz
(11,945 posts)They discussed the primary, among other things.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article79443967.html
KoKo
(84,711 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Brown is a man of integrity, but there may be things he fears or wants very much, and Bill Clinton has the resources to play that game.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)So, I don't think any arm-twisting was necessary.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of funneling money through Hillary's Law Firm.
The video was just posted on MSNBC of Jerry going after Bill. So the fences were mended ...but, treats still were possibly handed out in that 90 minute meeting.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It's certainly possible Brown will be part of Clinton's cabinet. Time will tell. But, again, I don't think there was any arm-twisting. A full 6 years ago Clinton was campaigning for Brown.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)...par for the course these days.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)This is all about securing a high post in a Clinton White House because he has gone as far as he can in politics.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Lots of people talk progressive, but this election is showing who really BELIEVES what they are talking.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Only in Sanders' world does he win the nomination. Even if he won CA he would still lose the nomination.
Instead of the perpetual conspiracy theories, how about dealing with reality? More Democrats have voted for Hillary than have voted for Sanders, that's the reason why she will be the party's nominee.
This place has become the LW version of the Freepers, just as nutty.......
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)I mentioned how friends who are dyed in the wool Bernie supporters have been accused by other dyed in the wool Bernie supporters of being sell-outs, oligarch lovers, naive and just being "turned on" in general because they DARED disagree with how they're increasingly not liking the way (Sanders) is running his campaign the past month. Several of my friends who are Bernie supporters are now not doing phone banking, donating, going door to door etc. now, and no longer show up at the headquarters due to the animosity there building up, so instead they've scaled back all their Sanders activity and throwing their support to Hillary Clinton. Some just quit and are not voting at ALL which I hate, but hey. A person has the right to not vote if they don't want to. We're all adults (I'd hope) with our own minds. The almost arguments and animosity they tell me they feel is so sad to hear about. I'm just listening on the phone to all of my Bernie supporter friends who are going through IT with fellow Bernie supporters.
I can remember being on the "other" side in 2008 as a Hillary supporter, and how although I was sad/disappointed that increasingly it appeared that she was NOT going to win the Dem nomination then (And she was actually not as far behind Sen. Obama as Bernie's behind Hillary at this point), but I realized that Senator Obama was going to win and that he'd bested Hillary & Co. and ran a FINE campaign. I mean, from then Senator Obama's canvassers to his phone banking/calling cell phone strategy netting younger voters who'd not normally be reached by land line was 1st class, and his masterstroke of caucusing--well--all of those things added up and it was the old ball game for Hillary (the enthusiasm didn't hurt either . It had to be to beat the Clinton's machinery at the time. I made a decision that shortly after Hillary officially dropped out of the race, that I needed to throw my support fully behind Sen. Obama. although still hurting but I did. Now, were there bitter moments between the Obama & Clinton camps? Absolutely, but I don't remember anything as nasty and contentious as what's going on between the Clinton and Sanders camps--at least here--on DU. I remember back then, friends who were Obama supporters never chided me or 'threw up' anything in my face about Sen. Obama beating Hillary Clinton. But then again, I wouldn't associate with folks who were like that, and yes we had disagreements and the language got salty at times, but we're still friends here 8 years later.
Me and friends are very passionate in our beliefs, and me and my buddies had every right to question each others candidate as we were ALL super stoked about either Sen. Obama (1st black POTUS, and about Hillary 1st woman who could be POTUS), and like I said at times we got close to arguing with each other, but we dialed it back and realized that we had 2 great candidates running for POTUS and to see the bigger picture. Me and my friends kept most of our differences straight/ironed out. But never once did any of us get nasty with one another. But this year is an extremely volatile one in politics as we can SEE, especially with Trump on the other side who could really do major damage as I see it to the gains we've made as Dems the past 30 or more years, and to hear directly from several of my Bernie supporter friends telling me that other Bernie supporters are turning on THEM to the point of not speaking to them because they said they'll throw their support behind Hillary Clinton in the GE is well, sad but it is what it is, and yes I'm stoked about Hillary this year but not rubbing it in my friends who are Sanders supporters faces. Never that. Never
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Nice smear of a great democratic progressive, I guess.
Trump would approve I'm sure.
tritsofme
(17,376 posts)It'll be great when the Trump fanboys are shown the door.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Give up the governorship of the biggest state to be Secretary of Whoever? I doubt.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)there isn't going to be any dems left to vote for bernie.
ecstatic
(32,681 posts)to Bernie, even if he is the last candidate standing. You guys have no idea how annoying the relentless whining, name calling, disgusting accusations, and conspiracy theories come across. It's like nails on a chalkboard. That's why the SDs want nothing to do with Bernie. He is the ringleader of the madness.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As far as the Super Delegates are concerned?
Number23
(24,544 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)the only ethical choice running as a Democrat.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It hasn't been necessary this primary season.
amborin
(16,631 posts)ecstatic
(32,681 posts)Trump syntax.
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)He should be supporting Bernie, but he's not, so it must be because he was bought, so he must be going to fix California's voting machines and steal the election!
It couldn't possibly be that he actually supports Hillary, or even just that he believes Hillary is certain to be the nominee and that Trump will be a disaster. No, it must be that he's a crook.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)The governor will not "steal" the election for anyone.
At this point, Sanders's supporters are worse than the birthers.
But 'way to go on persuading super delegate Brown to support your candidate.
MFM008
(19,805 posts)oh please,
isn't this getting embarrassing?
Let the people of California vote and then say if it goes for HRC it MUST be
fraud or conspiracy.
We have now run out of states on June 7 for this nonsense.
(D.C. not being a state and it will go big for HRC anyway)
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and you've decided to gin up the conspiracy theories early because to acknowledge that anyone but Bernie supporters have a right to participate in electing their leaders through the ballot box is something that you refuse to acknowledge.
Chances are very good Bernie will lose California, and the reason for that lies in the demographics of the state. If voting patterns are consistent with other elections throughout the country, Clinton will win.
Then there is the fact Clinton is likely to clinch the nomination by passing 2383 even before the polls close in California. Accepting that fact, however, requires respect for democracy rather than an ethos premised on imposing your own wishes and interests over the majority, against their electoral consent.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)
In states where he has lost, the results have been contested more often than not. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.
It's almost cult like, how can people fail to see the greatness of their chosen candidate? Their only answer seems to be that something crooked had to have happened for him to lose. In the South, where he got a drubbing, the "Confederate" states were duly dismissed. In MA it was blamed on Bill shaking hands. In NV a semi-riot started at the state convention, although Hillary had won the state by several points. KY was made to recount votes.
I don't recall Hillary's campaign contesting any state where she lost.
Then there's the undemocratic strategy proposed by his two weasels (Weaver and Devine), fully endorsed by Sanders himself, that super delegates should discount Hillary's large pledged delegate advantage in favor of Sanders because of match-up results that mean nothing this early on.
He's now actually lying to his supporters. He said at the rally he held today that if he wins CA, when he goes to the convention, he would leave with the Democratic nomination. Only in Sanders' parallel world will that event take place.