ElectionJusticeUSA.Org Election Fraud and Vote Manipulation Report is out...And Its Devastating

a reply to: khnum

Thanks.

I still prefer

www.biblecodedigest.com...

for my code reading . . . they have such a wealth of experience and experts on tap.

They concluded after several years that statistically it REQUIRES AT LEAST a code of 30 characters total to be significant and beyond chance.

The bloke in your video appears to meet that criteria. A lot of the words are far shorter, of course, but they cluster in logical ways and clearly hang together implicating the screechy one.

Another criteria . . . particularly with short words in a code . . . is: IS THE CLUSTER FAIRLY TIGHT, with the terms fairly close together in the surface text area involved. His clusters appear to be reasonably tight--tending toward confirming their validity.

I think he may well have some valid codes in his video about her.

Time will tell.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

• Impartial electoral institutions and the elimination of partisan elected officials.

What does that even mean? Ban candidates from association with political organizations?

Good luck organizing... anything.

• Voter Rights Act legislation that protects each citizen’s right to participate unencumbered by excessive obstacles; and ensures that all citizens have equal and easy access to polling locations.

What's an "excessive obstacle"? A Republican?

Will all polling places (many of them churches) now have to provide unisex bathrooms?

• Elimination of electronic voting machines and other low-security voting protocols.

Because vote fraud never existed before the digital age.

• Public financing of campaigns.

Steal my money to promote your bulls# candidates?

No.

• Participatory civics included in the national curriculum.

Let's do a better job brainwashing our children into blind nationalism and economic slavery.

• Third party debate and ballot access.

Who decides which parties are included? You can't include all of them. The ballot would be the size of a damn phone book.

I'm assuming that any statist party would be given preference, while any party advocating limited government will be shoved way down the list.

Just my opinion on that last part, of course, so we'll see.

• Open primaries that allow independents to participate.

If you are not a member of that party, what gives you the right to choose who leads it? If you want a say in the primary process, register with a political party.

But wait. Don't they want to get rid of "partisan elected officials"? Wouldn't everyone be an independent at that point?

Why have primaries at all?

• Ending or transforming the Electoral College.

Until it works in your favor, then you'll love it.

This would require an amendment to the Constitution, so I suppose we should expect it to be bypassed entirely by executive decree.

• Restoring voting rights to ex-felons nation-wide.

I actually agree with this one. Ex-cons know more about how the real world works than most people.

It seems to me that, to get what these people want, they're advocating massive government intervention, including the passing of blatantly unconstitutional laws.

But we already know you don't care about the Constitution, as evidenced by your complete disregard for the First Amendment, regarding which you still haven't answered my question:

How is legally prescribing media content not a violation of the First Amendment?

Do you have an answer?

a reply to: NthOther

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian • Impartial electoral institutions and the elimination of partisan elected officials.
What does that even mean? Ban candidates from association with political organizations?

Either you are being intentionally dense or your ignorance is showing. There are non-partisan elections held in every election cycle, at the city/town council level, school boards and judicial levels. Your response to this one question reveals so much...

a reply to: diggindirt

I thought we were talking about federal elections.

Thanks for moving those goal posts for me. I needed practice getting a little more leg into it.

You want to do this at the federal level? No party affiliation?

I think that's the most naive thing I've heard all week.

And it's been a stupid week.

Aaanndd, did ANYone even read or browse through the PDF I originally posted? Because that's the topic of this thread, not misplaced obtuse discussions of the First Amendment or the Bible Code

I guess some people want Donald Trump to have free access to the public airwaves to spew his fourth grade bully talk, because... Constitution! But god forbid the other sane people have a crack at it, because 'phone book' size candidate list!!! We've devolved to a country where profit from ad space and viewing eyeballs trumps (sorry) common sense and the public good.

Methinks the Founding Fathers had a bit more class and erudition in mind when they wrote out that part of the template, and NO, having civics lessons in school does NOT mean that 'students will have to vote' or that the bathrooms will be a topic of discussion.

Yeegods.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh . . .

Hello?

Do words mean anything to you?

"ELECTION FRAUD"

is a TYPE of . . . drum roll . . .

CORRUPTION.

Therefore,

a bible code relating to corruptioni--particularly anything close to election fraud--would be VERY ON TOPIC.

Perhaps you might deal with it accordingly.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: diggindirt

I thought we were talking about federal elections.

Thanks for moving those goal posts for me. I needed practice getting a little more leg into it.

You want to do this at the federal level? No party affiliation?

I think that's the most naive thing I've heard all week.

And it's been a stupid week.

What, exactly, would prohibit federal elections from being non-partisan?

If you can't see the enormous harm brought to this country by political parties, I think it's not me who is naive.
The easiest thing in the world for a voter to do is to walk into the polls, look for their particular cartoon character printed on the ballot and pull the lever for that party. No need to be able to read and reason, just pull that donkey or elephant lever.
There are literally thousands of working community governments elected on a non-partisan basis. My statement stands...your response shows much about your knowledge or lack of knowledge of government.

a reply to: diggindirt

Those "non-partisan" local officials are still members of political parties (most of them, anyway). They still caucus together. They still develop policy together. They still form committee alliances, etc.

They just don't put a party letter next to their name on the ballot.

Everything else functions exactly the same.

You think that will motivate voters to do more research on their candidates? Lol.

Considering the stupidity of the average American, they'll probably just go with the coolest sounding name. So if you're going to run under this proposed system, you should change your name to Max Power or something.

a reply to: jhn7537

Hillary and Co. don't know what "fair" means... They love playing with stacked decks each and every hand...

Whereas ElectionJusticeUSA.org filed a lawsuit to get a judge to unilaterally change the election rules at the last minute in order to favor their favorite candidate. No hypocrisy there....

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

The masses won't care no matter what that organisation finds. People are to busy waving flags and thinking they are free.

a reply to: NthOther

Considering the stupidity of the average American, they'll probably just go with the coolest sounding name.

Here is the basic difference between us---I don't consider the average American as stupid. I look at them as people who are struggling to do the right thing in spite of the political machinations raging about them.
As for running without a party for office---just so you know---I've already been there, done that and have the t-shirt. I've witnessed, up-close and personal, the disgusting corruption of the major parties and the media's collusion with that corruption.
But I've also witnessed the good people of the community coming together to defeat the corrupt machines when the truth is presented to them in logical, reasonable fashion. In an election where the real issues are discussed, solutions to the problems can be found. It works on a community level and if allowed to happen on a statewide and national level, it can work. But political parties are nothing more than gangs out to protect their turf. Abolition would be the best end for both major parties.
It's hard, thankless work for the most part to gather, organize and assemble the materials needed to prove the corruption and can't be done in media sound bites. But when honest people are presented with the evidence, the honest ones, who outnumber the corrupt ones, will band together for the good of the community and forget about party politics.

My statement still holds: Your responses show how very little first hand knowledge you have of the system you are supporting. You haven't shown me what prohibits holding nonpartisan elections on a federal level. When you can show me, we can continue this discussion. Until then, an author friend of mine has described your attitude perfectly.

I've finally recognized that there is a degree of willful ignorance that is beyond correction.

a reply to: diggindirt

Have you ever been a candidate?

a reply to: NthOther

What part of this is unclear?

As for running without a party for office---just so you know---I've already been there, done that and have the t-shirt.

The t-shirt did indeed have my name on it. No party.
Now, until you can answer my question, we're done. Your attitude toward your fellow citizens is very revealing.

a reply to: diggindirt

We're done anyway. You obviously have no clue what the First Amendment means, nor do you value its sentiments.

It's like talking to the Berlin Wall.

a reply to: NthOther

It was a simple question. You brought up the subject and yet instead of an answer.... Perhaps you should read something beyond the Constitution before attempting to argue election law.
Or continue to cling to your party obsession and berate people who are actually trying to make some much-needed changes to the corrupted system. It's a free country.