informed voters
The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked
A shadowy operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign heavily influenced the result of the EU referendum. Is our electoral process still fit for purpose?
By Carole Cadwalladr


It took me days to get time together to read this whole thing, but I have finally done it.

This is it. This is the one article you need to read to understand just what is going on in Britain, America, and Russia.

This is the one piece of writing you need and can use to reference the very chilling reality that these countries have been tied together in the machinations  of just a few billionaires, and how Facebook and Google tie in insidiouslyi.

I keep telling y’all to stop fucking with facebook but that’s moot now. It’s so much bigger than this.

“Was that really what you called it, I ask him. Psychological warfare? “Totally. That’s what it is. Psyops. Psychological operations – the same methods the military use to effect mass sentiment change. It’s what they mean by winning ‘hearts and minds’. We were just doing it to win elections in the kind of developing countries that don’t have many rules.”Why would anyone want to intern with a psychological warfare firm, I ask him. And he looks at me like I am mad. “It was like working for MI6. Only it’s MI6 for hire. It was very posh, very English, run by an old Etonian and you got to do some really cool things. Fly all over the world. You were working with the president of Kenya or Ghana or wherever. It’s not like election campaigns in the west. You got to do all sorts of crazy shit.”“

This is not just a story about social psychology and data analytics.

 It has to be understood in terms of a military contractor using military strategies on a civilian population. 

Us. David Miller, a professor of sociology at Bath University and an authority in psyops and propaganda, says it is “an extraordinary scandal that this should be anywhere near a democracy. It should be clear to voters where information is coming from, and if it’s not transparent or open where it’s coming from, it raises the question of whether we are actually living in a democracy or not.”

“And it was Facebook that made it possible. It was from Facebook that Cambridge Analytica obtained its vast dataset in the first place. Earlier, psychologists at Cambridge University harvested Facebook data (legally) for research purposes and published pioneering peer-reviewed work about determining personality traits, political partisanship, sexuality and much more from people’s Facebook “likes”. And SCL/Cambridge Analytica contracted a scientist at the university, Dr Aleksandr Kogan, to harvest new Facebook data. And he did so by paying people to take a personality quiz which also allowed not just their own Facebook profiles to be harvested, but also those of their friends – a process then allowed by the social network.”

Read this. Read the entire thing. It will take you a while and it’s a lot to digest but you need to know.

Signal boost.

@sunderlorn we’re finally completely united in propaganda, isn’t that nice!?


The GOP left a giant database containing personal information of almost every voter unprotected

  • Building giant databases of voters so you can crunch the numbers to launch targeted campaigns is standard practice in modern politics. 
  • It’s how elections are won now. It also creates a rich treasure trove of private information for hackers.
  • Republicans just let one of those troves unprotected, resulting in the largest leak of voter data in history. 
  • The vulnerability was discovered by Chris Vickery, a researcher with cybersecurity firm UpGuard, who found the trove of voter data sitting on an unsecured cloud computer server owned by Deep Root Analytics, a Republican data firm.
  • The database includes 198 million Americans, totaling around 1.1 terabytes of personal information — there are only 200 million Americans registered to vote. 
  • Exposed information includes address, date of birth, phone number, party, racial information and voter registration status, as well as other information cobbled together from outside sources. Read more (6/19/17)

It’s almost like the political press and all of cable new punditry was, in large part, following a fucking script and parroting a narrative, instead of actually informing voters.

The answer to why Seth Rich was killed, and why he gave to Wikileaks is now out.


Seth Rich was responsible for an internet application that helped voters find their polling stations.

He discovered that Hillary had set up bogus polling places that were not on the official record. Hillary then had DNC staffers merge the results from both sets of polling places, keeping the actual number of voters officially recorded at the legitimate polling station the same while the actual ballots that went to Bernie and represented those numbers were swapped out for her.

Seth Rich was appalled by the corruption, and as a result, dumped to Wikileaks.

This answer has been out there since July 21 of 2016 and it rotted until it was recently discovered in a private E-mail.

This was written by Claudia Kash, the girlfriend of Seth Rich. She wrote this shortly after he was killed. The answer has been out there since the beginning.

“There were two sets of polling places this primary season - one set for most of the voters, who went on state web sites to find their polling locations, and a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary clinton’s website to find their polling location. The secretary of state for each state had one set of locations on the record, the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary’s website were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote, then double checked the state website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake - I kept checking right up to election day. But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn’t figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place - with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines etc - and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place, and after the polls colsed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots.

The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots there. He (or she) would then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal nunmber of the ballots from the Hillary Clinton voting location. Then the duplicate roster from the HRC would be shredded and thrown away, along with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had been replaced. That way the number of people who voted on the remaining roster still matches the number of ballots. This is why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout”. Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places did not realize there were two sets of polling places until he himself wet to vote. he lived in Washington DC, which voted at the end of the primary season, a week after Clinton had already been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then and had started asking questions about why the polling places on Hillary’s web site did'nt match the ones on the DC web site.

But even if he didn’t say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live. He would have figured it out sooner or later, and he would have reported it when he did.“

My comment: Let me then, fill in the blanks: Seth rich DID figure out Hillary did this, and said nothing. Instead, he did the DNC leaks to Wikileaks, hopefully to bring the whole house of cards down. The timing is so close on all of this that it can’t really be known if Seth was killed because he knew Hillary’s plot, or if he was killed because someone figured out it was him who did the leaks.

The answer to why Seth Rich was killed, and why he gave to Wikileaks is now out.Seth Rich was responsible for an internet application that helped voters find their polling stations.He discovered that Hillary had set up bogus polling places that were not on the official record. Hillary then had DNC staffers merge the results from both sets of polling places, keeping the actual number of voters officially recorded at the legitimate polling station the same while the actual ballots that went to Bernie and represented those numbers were swapped out for her.

To sum this up in a short statement: Hillary set up duplicate polling stations, collected a second set of votes that never showed up at the legitimate polling place, and then flipped the voter ID information at the legitimate polling stations and swapped it out with votes from her polling stations exclusively on legitimate ballots where people voted for Bernie Sanders. She’d have to be mega corrupt and powerful to do this, and the DNC would have to be rotten to the core, but that is probably so when the Clinton death machine is never forced to give answers. That means there is serious deeply rooted corruption and dark power. Seth Rich found out, was having none of it, and then died.


Hillary no doubt did this to Trump also, via people planted at key, fully compromised polling stations. That would explain perfectly why there was a “low turnout” even though this was probably the most heated election in American history, and it also explains why Hillary won in such a small number of places, yet almost took the election.


Important information for voters in the UK!!
Opinion | Who is to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss? A lot of people are — James Comey included.
Let's stop trying to oversimplify what really happened here.

April 23, 2017 - Media Quick to Assign Blame, But Not to Themselves

What - not who - is to blame, can be summed up in two words, Sexism and Racism.  Hillary was not a liar, was not corrupt, was not a bad candidate, did not run bad campaign.  Many white working class voters chose Clinton over Obama in 2008 because they could not back a black man.  Given a choice between a liberal woman and a conservative man, however, they chose the man.  The media helped by constantly beating the drum about her emails and the Clinton Foundation, while giving Trump’s many scandals a quick once-over and then moving on to the next one.  Their constant vilification of Hillary Clinton, a narrative that extends back 30 years, turned low-information voters strongly against her.  But where is the hand-wringing over their role in Clinton’s loss?

“Much of the post-election debate is on some basic level framed around a false choice — one pitting the need to minister to the Obama coalition versus the need for economic appeals to working-class whites.”

“These are, at bottom, about the need for reforms that make the economy fairer and render prosperity more inclusive, for everyone.”

It’s Obama’s Fault

Official, “I didn’t loose the election, the Democratic Party was bankrupt”  Now please remember this is from the woman that stated that Bernie should never be nominated because unlike her he had not raised huge funds for the Party (Despite his early fundraising FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY).

Official “I didn’t loose the election, the Democratic Party had no voter information or databases”  I guess then that Bernie’s campaign alert on the open doorways wasn’t that important.

MTP,  “Obama and DWS mismanaged and destroyed the DNC”

Okay Hillarybots, when your candidate runs in 2020 and takes the Democratic Party down with her, remember it is never her fault, and actually if you let her run and be nominated she will be right.

Remember this date: November 6, 2018. That’s the date on which 33 senate seats, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and 14 governorships will be up for re-election. Put it on your calendar now and be prepared to be an informed voter. If you are worried, concerned, angry, disappointed about the direction the government is going this is the most effective way to make a change, stop complaining and start planning. Remember the president is only one cog in the government machine, and you can make effective change through voting for your local and state representatives, this is the check that can balance this situation.

There was a persistent belief that Trump would fix these problems and make Obamacare work better. I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. In fact, some of the people I talked to hope that one of the more divisive pieces of the law — Medicaid expansion — might become even more robust, offering more of the working poor a chance at the same coverage the very poor receive. The political reality in Washington, however, looks much different: Republicans are dead set on repealing the Affordable Care Act. The plans they have proposed so far would leave millions of people without insurance and make it harder for sicker, older Americans to access coverage. No version of a Republican plan would keep the Medicaid expansion as Obamacare envisions it.
A Republican contractor’s database of nearly every voter was left exposed on the Internet for 12 days, researcher says
The Republican National Committee's database of nearly every registered American voter was left vulnerable to theft on a public server for 12 days this month, according to a cybersecurity researcher who found and downloaded the trove of data.

Detailed information on nearly every U.S. voter — including in some cases their ethnicity, religion and views on political issues — was left exposed online for TWO WEEKS by a political consultancy which works for the RNC and other GOP clients.

“What is alarming about this now is that I believe it’s the first time RNC IDs and model data have been exposed,” said Matt Oszcowski, a veteran GOP political data strategist who recently started his own political fundraising company, Campaign Inbox. “This is not just a list of people; this is unique proprietary information which gives away [Republican] strategy and informs on targeting and methodology.”

In true Republican fashion, Matt Oszcowski states the most alarming part of this is the GOP’s proprietary information has been jeopardized. NOT the millions of individual American’s voter information.

TWO WEEKS. For two weeks American voter information was left insecure online by the RNC. The DNC gets hacked, the RNC “accidentally” leaves American voter data vulnerable to theft on a public server.

anonymous asked:

You believe black people would not be able to pass a civics exam at a polling place similar to a driver's exam to prove they are competent enough to vote. That's what you've directly implied. Explain to me how you're not the racist in that scenario? With a little thought you would see it would work entirely in our favor seeing as Trump's base is largely uneducated and easily gulled. This is not a qualified voter and I take offense to your "Low information" voter statement which is also racist.

I’m not talking about black people’s ability to pass a civics exam. I’m referring to how literacy tests were used against black people during the Reconstruction era to disenfranchise them. This wasn’t because they were “low information” but because such tests can be manipulated to make sure certain people *don’t* pass them. That’s my objection. Once you put barriers in place to voting, you increase the chance that these barriers will be used against people who are the most disadvantaged, especially when elections are controlled by political operatives, as they are in the US. Who gets to decide what’s on the test, whether it’s offered in any other language other than English, etc?  Why would you trust that such a system would be administered fairly?

My reference to low information voters was about the people who either voted for Trump or who, on the left, didn’t bother to find out whether the bullshit they read about Clinton was true or not. Almost none of these people are black. Black people came through for Clinton. You know I’m not talking about them, but you’re pissed off at me for not liking your suggestion to revive a terrible idea and now you’re trying to pretend like I’m saying something else entirely. 

Edit: that first part was supposed to say “used against black people during the Reconstruction era through the early 1960s” but while trying to make this shorter I somehow cut that out, and it’s kind of important.
Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known
Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

One of the mysteries about the 2016 presidential election is why Russian intelligence, after gaining access to state and local systems, didn’t try to disrupt the vote. One possibility is that the American warning was effective. Another former senior U.S. official, who asked for anonymity to discuss the classified U.S. probe into pre-election hacking, said a more likely explanation is that several months of hacking failed to give the attackers the access they needed to master America’s disparate voting systems spread across more than 7,000 local jurisdictions.

Such operations need not change votes to be effective. In fact, the Obama administration believed that the Russians were possibly preparing to delete voter registration information or slow vote tallying in order to undermine confidence in the election. That effort went far beyond the carefully timed release of private communications by individuals and parties.

One former senior U.S. official expressed concern that the Russians now have three years to build on their knowledge of U.S. voting systems before the next presidential election, and there is every reason to believe they will use what they have learned in future attacks.
Why Obamacare enrollees voted for Trump
Whitley County, Kentucky's uninsured rate declined 60 percent under Obamacare. So why did 82 percent of voters there support Donald Trump?
By Sarah Kliff

I spent last week in southeastern Kentucky talking to Obamacare enrollees, all of whom supported Trump in the election, trying to understand how the health care law factored into their decisions.

Many expressed frustration that Obamacare plans cost way too much, that premiums and deductibles had spiraled out of control. And part of their anger was wrapped up in the idea that other people were getting even better, even cheaper benefits — and those other people did not deserve the help.

There was a persistent belief that Trump would fix these problems and make Obamacare work better. I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. In fact, some of the people I talked to hope that one of the more divisive pieces of the law — Medicaid expansion — might become even more robust, offering more of the working poor a chance at the same coverage the very poor receive.

“I really think Medicaid is good, but I’m really having a problem with the people that don’t want to work,” she said. “Us middle-class people are really, really upset about having to work constantly, and then these people are not responsible.”

Oller had told me earlier that she had enrolled on Medicaid for a few months, right before she started this job. She was taking some time off to care for her husband, who has cancer and was in chemotherapy treatment. I asked how she felt about enrolling in a program she sometimes criticizes.

“Oh, no,” she said quickly. “I worked my whole life, so I know I paid into it. I just felt like it was a time that I needed it. That’s what the system is set up for.”

TLDR: white people only like obamacare when it benefits them, but resents that it also helps POC and poor people, so they vote for Trump even if it means they also risk losing their own healthcare. 


Candidate information and voter registration deadlines and how-to’s

eta: Lin has a next-day rewrite!

An Open Letter To Millennials: The Blindness Of The Media Will Break Your Heart

I clicked on this article looking to find some possible information on why Bernie Sanders is a sham. Why I should temper my expectations. Why, maybe, I might be over investing myself in some fever dream. I’m open to that. I pride myself on being an informed voter, open to hearing and seeing all points of view. Instead what I found was straw man attacks against some misguided supporters of Sanders (which there’s no denying exist) and a clear misunderstanding of what draws me and a good percentage of my peers to Sanders’ campaign.

Labeling Sanders as a “shrill, fairly dull, wonkish 74-year-old white-haired Jewish socialist from Vermont with a grating Brooklyn accent” shows me that the author of this piece does not see him the way that we do. In fact, “fairly dull” was such a far miss in my eyes that it was hard to not let that negate every word in this opinion piece.

The next part of this article that made me ask “what is this guy TALKING about?” was this:

“Sanders is that loud curmudgeonly uncle that you hope doesn’t corner you on Passover to ask why you’re dating a non-Jew, don’t have children yet or chose art over medicine.”

I’m wondering how this man feels “cornered” by Sanders. Sanders SUPPORTERS, yes, very possibly (probably) have cornered people at any given time and expressed their enthusiasm and disbelief that you do not share their ideals- but, in my perception, Sanders himself has merely been stating his beliefs about what he wants this country to look like and created an invitation for others to join him. 

To me, he’s always explained his difference in ideals between him and other candidates as just that- differences in ideals. And as someone who has been cornered by a Jewish relative on Passover and had my personal life dug into, I can tell you- it’s a very different feeling.

And finally, the last paragraph of this article makes bold claims (without any references to Bernie Sanders history as a politician) that he will cave and move his stances and let his supporters down as, in the author’s opinion, Barack Obama and countless other candidates have done before.

My response to that is simple: Obama was an establishment candidate. And while he accomplished a GREAT amount for progressives, some do see him as falling short on what they felt promised. And in these areas, we need to look to where he got his money from. Because as great (or awful, if you see it that way) as he’s been, he was still beholden to a political system manipulated by large dollar amounts from corporate interest groups. 

THIS is where Bernie is different. No Super-Pacs. No substantial donations from corporate interest groups. This candidate isn’t beholden to anyone but the promises he’s making to his supporters. I haven’t seen this in my lifetime, and my peer group is realizing this very thing. THAT is why millenials are supporting Bernie in huge numbers. 

And sure, he might “break our heart” by not meeting our seemingly astronomical expectations. But we’re willing to bet that it wont be because of deception or back room promises made to giant corporations. 

And that’s something worth voting for.

anonymous asked:

What's your take on the news about one of Bernie's (now former) staffers breaching a firewall in the DNC database and accessing Hillary's data?

Okay so, I’m just going to explain what happened first of all to get everyone up to speed:

So today, the Bernie Sanders campaign just filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention for the right to view their voter data. 

All candidates bidding for the Democratic party nomination create contracts with the DNC which endow candidates with specialized voter data access relative to their campaigns, and the rules are very clear and finite: the DNC must keep data belonging to each campaign private and if either the candidate or the DNC breach the terms of their agreement then the agreement may only be terminated once the accusing party alerts the alleged perpetrating party as to why their contract is being terminated and gives them ten days to rectify the situation.

Earlier this week, the DNC voter software NGP VAN glitched and allowed the Bernie Sanders campaign to access the Hillary Clinton campaign’s voter data. The DNC alleges that several members of the Bernie Campaign took advantage of the glitch and accessed Clinton’s files, though the Bernie campaign fired Josh Uretsky whom they claim was the only man involved in the data collection. Uretsky has since said that he was only trying to show the DNC there was a problem in the first place, but I find that doubtful. Anyway, because member(s) of the Sanders campaign accessed said data, the DNC suspended the Sanders’ campaigns access to its own voter data which means that the campaign cannot find voter information which is important in fundraising and get out the vote efforts, which the Sanders campaign is claiming is costing them over $600,000 a day. 

The Sanders campaign filed the lawsuit on the grounds that the DNC did not follow their contract and did not notify the Sanders campaign of their plan to terminate their agreement nor its reasoning and thus did not give them the ten day rectification period. Also, they claim that they did nothing wrong in the first place because, regardless of whether or not Uretsky acted without authorization of the greater campaign, what he did was not technically a breach of the contract since he simply accessed available data, so it’s actually the DNC’s fault in the first place for breaching their contract with Hillary and publicizing her data.

In all honesty, I think that, whether or not the Sanders campaign acted with collective intent, the DNC are legally in the wrong at this point, they didn’t act in accordance with their own regulations and that’s on them. Sanders and his campaign have been wronged contractually, and the only obligation they really had to disregard the Clinton data would be a moral one - and that argument on part of the defendant isn’t viable in a court of law. 

As for my personal opinion, I’d say that I’m almost completely positive that the DNC is out to get Sanders in any way they can. It’s obvious they favor Hillary; she is the establishment candidate. They actively promote her, and their limit of the number of Democratic debates is a pretty shallow ploy to deny exposure to other candidates. And besides, this same thing happened in 2008 to the Clinton campaign, yet no one was suspended from voter access then. 

On obsessiveness and voting

Hi. So when I was 18, and 20, and 22, I did not vote.

I was really scared of voting.

I’m always kind of overwhelmed by new situations, and voting seemed truly terrifying: 1. There are strangers there; 2. I wasn’t sure if some of those strangers would try to keep me from voting; 3. I might have to stand in line; 4. the voting machines would be scary and weird; 5. I knew the basics of who I wanted to vote for, but I didn’t know a lot about the ballot initiatives, many of which–when I would consult sample ballots–seemed to be intentionally obtuse.

Basically, I fell into this obsessive thought spiral and it felt like the only way out of all my anxiety and fear was just not to vote, and so I didn’t, because not voting is pretty easy.

This happens to me all the time, even about very little things: Like, every day I have to take this pill in order to be overall less inclined toward obsessive thought spirals, and some days it becomes incredibly hard to take the pill, because not taking the pill is technically easier, and my brain cycles through all these terrible possible outcomes associated with taking the pill, like how I will have to swallow and what if the pill gets stuck in my esophagus and also I will have to drink something, and what if the tap water I drink contains salmonella and etc.

Voting is different from taking your medicine, but I think maybe some of the time when people say “My vote won’t count anyway,” or “I don’t feel informed enough to vote,” or whatever they say, what they’re really saying is, “Everything in my regular everyday life is challenging and hard enough without having to add this weird unknown voting thing to my life.”

And people will dismiss that feeling as silly–which maybe technically it is; like, I guess it’s technically silly that I find it incredibly hard to take my medication on some days–but it is real and if you feel that way, you are not alone or a freak or a failure of democracy or anything like that.

For one thing, there are people who do not want you to vote, and in many places they have made it hard to do so. But hopefully not impossible! For another, new things are scary and overwhelming to a lot of people.

So here’s what I have learned about voting:

1. At almost every polling place, there is someone who will advocate for your right to vote and try to make it easy for you.

2. If you go to the wrong polling place, or you aren’t registered, no one will get mad at you.

3. If you vote for the wrong person by accident, no one will get mad at you. They just give you a new ballot.

4. You are not the worst-informed voter in the United States.

5. The trick of having only experienced voters know how to navigate the process of voting is an attempt by those who have power to retain it. You deserve to be heard. Your voice is valuable. So take a few deep breaths, look up your polling place, and become one of the people that the U.S.’s elected representatives must answer to.

I know it’s not easy, and I congratulate and thank every single person reading this who voted in this election.