Gaius Publius: Puerto Rico Democratic Party Reduced Primary Votes to 8% of What Was Expected

Posted on by

By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. Originally published at at Down With Tyranny. GP article here

Just three facts and a video. You can add them up as easily as I can.

1. Puerto Rican officials expected 700,000 people to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary. Think Progress, from a much longer article:

[A]n estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday[.]

That’s a lot of voters.

2. But the Democratic Party cut the number of polling places by two-thirds, from more than 1500 to less than 500. In addition, because there were two simultaneous elections — one for local officials and one for the presidential race — voters had to go to two separate locations if they wanted to cast both ballots. Then the Party cut the voting hours, the window of time during which any voting could be done.

A longer clip from the same Think Progress article (my emphasis):

In early May, Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party announced that more than 1,500 polling places would be available for the island’s June 5 Democratic primary. A few weeks later, they slashed that number to just over 430 — a reduction of more than two thirds.

In 2008, the island’s last competitive Democratic primary, there were more than 2,300 polling places.

Some are warning of long lines and voters left unable to access the ballot box, as an estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday, and polling places will only be open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m..

Worse, many voters will have to visit two separate locations to cast ballots in the presidential primary and the local primaries held the same day. Voter turnout and engagement has for years been much higher on the island than in the 50 U.S. states, but these changes may present too heavy a burden for low-income residents who lack transportation options or who need to work.

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are up in arms about the polling place reductions, calling it a “fix” and drawing parallels to Arizona’s disastrous primary. Arizona’s most populous county closed two-thirds of its polling locations ahead of its April primary, forcing some voters to wait in line more than six hours to cast a ballot.

They got the result they wanted….

3. The number of votes actually cast in the Democratic presidential primary totaled just over 60,000. If my math is correct, that about 8% of the expected total, or a voter suppression rate of 92%. Again, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party, all good loyal Democrats I’m sure, suppressed 92% of their own vote, by reducing voting locations and hours.

Why? You decide. My answer? Too much democracy for the “Democratic” Party.

Did Sanders Request Fewer Polling Places?

When this news came out, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party accused the Sanders campaign of having requested fewer polling places. Here’s what Sanders had to say about that (my emphasis):

Sanders Campaign Statement on Puerto Rico Polling Places
June 5, 2016

SAN DIEGO – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign issued the following statement Sunday on long lines at polling places in Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party presidential primary election:

“Some Puerto Rico Democratic officials are claiming that the Sanders campaign requested fewer polling places in today’s primary contest. That’s completely false. The opposite is true. In emails with the party, Sanders’ staff asked the party to maintain the 1,500 plus presidential primary locations promised by the Puerto Rico Democratic party in testimony before the DNC in April, when the party was asking to have its caucus changed to a primary. They cannot blame their shoddy running of the primary on our campaign. This is just one example of irregularities going on in Puerto Rico voting today. We are the campaign that has been fighting to increase voter participation.”

How corrupt is the current leadership, top to bottom, of many of the arms of the Democratic Party? Looks like “very” to me. The willingness to corrupt the process seems to exist at many of the state and county committees as well. (It’s not a conspiracy if you don’t have to tell the county committeewoman what to do, if she already knows, in other words, when and where to stick in the knife.)

How determined is the Democratic Party to commit seppuku on a national electoral stage? Same answer. Flying high on hubris usually lead to a crash landing. Pride and a fall.

For more on the situation in Puerto Rico, check out this short video, made just before the election.

Looks like the Clinton-led Democratic Party isn’t even trying to hide this stuff any more. Looks like they don’t think they need to.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


    1. Jim Haygood

      Jeb! offered some helpful tips too, from his successful Florida effort in 2000.

      All in the family!

  1. marym

    Final vote count still not reported for Puerto Rico. CBS and CNN showing the same vote counts, CBS calling it 59% reporting, CNN 69%

  2. TheCatSaid

    I learned a lot from this short clip linked by NC reader Bev.

    I learned more from the full video at The RICO lawsuit filed by Bob Fitrakis and Cliff Arnebeck deserves attention. They are highly experienced election lawyers. Their evidence and legal strategy is explained in the video.

    The new report “Fraction Magic” at has more bombshells.
    And the recent Greg Palast revelations about the issues with the NPP ballots in CA.

    AND–short video clips from many of the top experts in US election fraud are at lawyer Bob Fitrakis’ website. These are all people with lengthy experience documenting election irregularities of many kinds, including but not limited to the tactics for voter disenfranchisement used in Puerto Rico.

    And guess what–the election consultant hired by Trump was a key player in past election irregularities.

    Since the late 1990s in many (most?) places we have not had true elections, we’ve had competitions in vote rigging by multiple parties and interests, using a wide range of tactics and technology.

    1. Bev

      To TheCatSaid from TheDogHowled-Bev, so true. And, Bev Harris has more bomshells: I am going there now, but to let you know some of your links do not work. It’s time to get back our democracy from the criminals rigging our elections.

      Wasn’t the last protest at a Trump rally, which usually promotes violence against protesters, this time instead had protesters turning violent against Trump backers, found out later to be Clinton’s people? Isn’t that correct? There is your preview of how these anti-democracy, authoritarian leaders intend to win as TheCatSaid, by rigging the vote in many ways, accusing each other of rigging and violence, and by beating the crap out of each other, a la brown shirts. NO.

      To all sports fans, the following will change our future for the better by rescuing our democracy and our kids.

      With some few edits, via:
      The GOP’s new plan for voter suppression

      Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?
      Richard Charnin

      BREAKING NEWS: Election Attorney Cliff Arnebeck filed a major RICO racketeering lawsuit June 6, 2016 against the voting machine companies whose code that fractionalized votes and so delegate distribution was found by Bev Harris (
      Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers ), and against the media that was complicit in covering up the crime of election theft by adjusting the exit polls to match the fraudulent voting machine counts which was found by Richard Charnin and Beth Clarkson ( ).

      This is a Very Strong RICO lawsuit involving State and Federal Courts, involving current and past election crimes, that importantly involves ALL THE STATES, that means Illinois, Cub fans, for the collection of evidence to determine the correct vote counts, and delegate counts.

      Arnebeck says that by the time of the Republican Convention which is before the Democratic Convention, that this RICO racketeering lawsuit will have changed history, and the minds of politicians and the public so that the true winner, Bernie Sanders, will be demanded. What a great legacy.

      See the short video:

Bob Fitrakis, Cliff Arnebeck and Lori Grace

      NYT, Ap and other media are reporting that Hillary has “clinched” the nomination. They, having jumped the shark, want to tell you how she did it. Now they can tell a judge how they did it because the media have been RICOed.

      Attorney Cliff Arnebeck says it does not matter what the media says or Hillary Clinton says, the law, this RICO case will prevail. This will save our Democracy.

      Today is a great day. Today is the beginning of getting our democracy back.

      Thanks to all election integrity people who so trust regular people to create a better future for us all, that you fight for a democracy. What a great day.


      Please spread this important RICO event all around everywhere. Because, I think the media will have a hard time reporting that they have been sued for racketeering. We will have to report widely.

      1. Bev

        Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?
        by Richard Charnin

        UPDATE: Bob Fitrakis updates information about the RICO suit and California which they are collecting evidence for their case.

        (To Note: Which that alone may be causing counties in California to flip from Clinton to Bernie:
        Glenn, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara have all changed to Bernie with the latest update from the California Secretary of State.

        6-10-16 Nicole Sandler Show – Election Integrity – Fact or Fraud?
        Bob Fitrakis on The Nicole Sandler Show
        Nicole Sandler

        54:10 on video to see better than the rough transcript below:

        Update: The RICO lawsuit has not yet been filed.

        Originally, attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis were going to file their RICO lawsuit earlier on June 6th in order to get the networks to release the raw data on exit polls for the California primary. The networks cancelled exit polls instead.

        The RICO suit will be filed. The problem is they ran into a huge problems in California.

        With the donations they are getting, Arnebeck and Fitrakis are beefing up legal staff.

        California, if it were a nation would be the eight largest nation on earth, had some of the most massive irregularities. Fitrakis said he was getting emails constantly from poll workers and election observers saying 25% of people in my precinct were forced to vote provisionally.

        Systematic problems with registration being wrong, peoples showed up saying they had registered to vote in the Democrat primary, but instead were registered as being in other parties which meant that they could not vote for a presidential candidate.

        Fitrakis said, we did some limited exit polling ourselves and those numbers are being crunched.

        The suits and it looks like there may be two of them: the initial one over getting the exit polls and also a second one getting discovery for criminal activity which is the one that should go first, be filed first.

        But California had massive levels of irregularities and what looks like outright fraud. Most of California should be roped off as a crime scene. it happened deliberately from party loyalists and private corporations.

        California has delayed us somewhat and caused us to beef up legal staff. He says they will be filing next week.

        For donations go to or

  3. RUKidding

    We’re supposed to feel victorious that Maggie Thatcher, uh, Hillary Clinton allegedly “won” the D Primary all fair and square. To suggest that shenanigans happened means that I’m a putative Bernie Bro who is clearly clueless, stupid, worthless and should STFU.

    Oh well. C’est la vie. Hillary was certainly bound to be inevitable this time around… by hook or by CROOK.

    IMO, the PTB were much more worried about Bernie Sanders than Trump. Clinton? Eh, Hillary’s their fair haired girl. The rightwing noise machine may vent and spew about Clinton, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Clinton’s the poodle of Wall St, the Hedgies, the MIC. CHA CHING!!

    The masses can content themselves with the glass ceiling allegedly having been broken. Whoopee.

    1. different clue

      The TIFFANY glass ceiling. The Tiffany Glass Ceiling that Upper Class feminists of privilege want the rest of us to care about even though we are dealing with Cinder Block Ceilings of our own.

  4. Pepe Aguglia

    Although Bernie never had a chance of getting the nomination (not because he couldn’t win enough votes but because the party would have never nominated him even if he had won every single state primary), he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster. It is now clear for all to see, if there was any doubt previously, that We the People will never be able to overthrow the plutocracy until we drive a stake through the Democratic Party’s heart and stick a fork in its bloated carcass.

    1. YankeeFrank

      Yes, the greatest betrayer of a cause is all too frequently the guy right next to you. The one who says he is on your side. The “liberals” were always going to be the revolution’s most dangerous foes.

      I visited that extremely mixed bag of a blog “lawyersgunsandmoney” yesterday just to see how they’d been covering the Dem primary and was not let down at all. They attempted to skewer Yves’ politico piece with glib and snide inline comments that fell completely flat, but I think my favorite comment was when the author of the piece used Obama’s recent words on expanding social security as proof that the Dem establishment is becoming more progressive. I mean, there is room for argument about tactics for moving the Dems to the left, but if we are going to pretend that Obama hasn’t spent the past 7 years trying to gut social security in order to “save” it, and that his recent empty words signify anything more than a pathetic 11th hour attempt to get in front of the revolution and call it his parade, then our worldviews are just fundamentally irreconcilable.

      1. jhallc

        I saw that yesterday and having never been to that site before and given the site’s name, I had a very different expectation about it’s leanings. I immediately realized they were shilling for Hillary. Wonder how Warren Zevon would feel about his lyrics being used for neoliberal propoganda.

        1. YankeeFrank

          The site is definitely mixed tho, not all bad. What confuses me the most is their hostility to those who see incrementalism as a fraud, but I guess thats because they truly think its the only thing that works (history be damned). I remember I lost patience with them when they started celebrating Janet Yellen’s appointment over Larry Summers. I pointed out that while she is better than him she is still a complete neoliberal tool and wont change anything. They couldn’t handle that apparently. Honestly, when it comes to econ they don’t know what they don’t know. Its a major blind spot for them esp. given Obama’s major betrayals have been economic.

          Still, Erik Loomis’ posts on labor history are very interesting.

        2. Tom McMaster

          Sorry for the pedantry, but that should read “wonder how Warren Zevon would have felt…”
          I think I can tell you. He would have been pissed off by the corruption and fraud.

    2. Carla

      “he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster.”

      Not to take anything away from Bernie, but Obama has been doing this for the last seven and a half years!

        1. Steve C

          But he’s so smooth. And he’s such a great husband and father. And he’s friends with JayZee and Beyoncé. How could such a nice young man be lying to us about the TPP?

    3. jfleni

      Although it’s early yet, after the right, royal, hosing Bernie has gotten since he started, he should realize that Doctor Stein is progressing well on getting Greens on all state ballots, and consider carefully her offer to run with them.

      A presidential election has much less room for the slimy tricks we have seen so much of, and the turd Democrats will be flushed down the toilet of history, as Bernie puts his program into action.

  5. AnEducatedFool

    I am still numb. My anger will come back later today but there is no effective outlet in this part of the country other than the internet.

    Morning Joe was comparing Sanders to RFK especially after seeing the crowds in Puerto Rico then California. Instead of assassinating Sanders they simply stole the election. I think Sanders will pull a move similar to Jerry Brown in 1992.

    It also looks like Warren will get the nod for VP so the Democrats can have two former Republicans running for President and the Libertarians will have two former Republicans and the Republicans will have a former Democrat running on their ticket.

    I do not think that people realize that Elizabeth Warren is hated by dedicated Bernie supporters. Only a fraction of the 25% that say they will not vote for Clinton will change their mind based on Warren. Many others will vote for Stein, Johnson and in competitive states they may vote for Trump just to keep her out of office.

    And the media, the fucking media, they are going to point to that absurd “foreign policy” speech as the turning point for Clinton.

    1. pretzelattack

      so if we want the closest thing to a democrat we have to vote republican? i’m so confused. i’m looking for somebody that didn’t support reagan, the iraq war or the trade treaties.

        1. pretzelattack

          she is the closest to me politically, but right now i’m thinking what is the most effective way to pry off the suckers of the vampire squid, and some of the criticisms of the green party i’ve read on nc make me wonder–long term we have to have another party, agreed. put me in the “8 more years of this neoliberal bullshit is a disaster” camp.

          1. Optic

            I just started following this site a couple of days ago. I’m curious to hear what are some of the criticisms of the green party that have been voiced here.

            1. flora

              In my state the Green Party isn’t on the presidential ballot.
              My state’s recognized presidential parties are the Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and Republican Party.

              In my state the rules are:
              “To obtain official recognition in[my state], party organizers must submit a petition that contains signatures of voters registered in the state and abides by the petition regulations outlined in [my state’s] law. The total number of valid signatures required for a successful petition is equal to 2 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor in the most recent general election for governor. …
              “There are two requirements for recognized political parties to maintain their official status with the state. At each general election for national and state offices, parties must: (a) nominate a candidate for at least one office that is elected statewide (e.g., governor, commissioner of insurance or state treasurer), and (b) at least one such candidate of the party must receive at least 1 percent of the total votes cast in the election for that office….”

              Voting for Stein as a write-in won’t have any effect on the Green Party’s viability as competitive party. There’s a lot of dogged groundwork that would need to be done, that hasn’t been done, and from what I see isn’t being done in my state. Other states may have done that work and I’d love to see a Green elected to congress from one of those states, or elected to state office in one of those states.

              1. Unorthodoxmarxist

                As a longtime Green, former candidate and professional campaign manager, I have to say that developing a “ground game” for downticket races is extremely difficult when you are not running as a Democrat/Republican and have little support from the professional orgs that usually provide cash or people (PACs/Labor). We’ve often done well with what we have, but until there’s a serious break from the Dems and those people who have wasted their time for decades trying to reform that party come over to us in a serious way, the left will continue to spin its wheels.

                1. bob

                  The history of the greens is a good start for any reform minded individual. It shows just how much work is required, and where.

                  Hint- It ain’t twitter.

              2. Steve C

                Passage of instant runoff voting in Maine in November would be a sea change for the Greens and other third parties. Unless there is something wrong with this particular referendum, this is something NCers should follow and support.

            2. lyman alpha blob

              Worked with the Greens in my state until I discovered that they were unorganized and corrupt. That last one was the deal-breaker for any further involvement from me. They’d cooperate with the right wing to stick it to the Dems which is a very stupid strategy if you’re looking for more progressive outcomes. Stealing clean election funds to run unviable candidates didn’t sit well with me either.

          2. Carla

            Vote third parties to help them maintain ballot access. We’re going to need them.

    2. washunate

      The foreign policy speech is an interesting marker in another way, though. Through the primary season, there was some effort to downplay Clinton’s hawkishness, to distance her from the neoconservatives, to ridicule Sanders on trying to make foreign policy distinctions.

      That speech put that effort to rest. She openly embraced the war on terror specifically and the whole neoconservative interventionist mindset more generally.

    3. Teejay

      I’m a “dedicated Bernie supporter” and I don’t “hate” Warren. She’s fandamtastic and it would be a colossal waste of her talent to have her VP.
      She has far more power in the Senate than she would have as VP. Heh may be the abbreviation really stand for veal pen.

    4. ladycurmudgeon

      I don’t dislike Warren. I thought the reason they might pick her as VP candidate is to neutralize her. She is active in the Sen. VP goes to funerals.

    5. different clue

      I must not be a DEDicated Bernie supporter because Warren is not hated by me. I hope she stays in the Senate and keeps doing her focused work against certain FIRE sector perpetrators and cover-lending regulators.

      It would be a shame if she accepted the VP nomination with Clinton. The SS Clinton is a ship I would rather see Warren NOT go down with.

    6. Otis B Driftwood

      I respect and admire Warren, but adding her to the ticket won’t make a difference for me in November. Indeed, quite the opposite as she is/would be more effective as a senator than veep. #NeverTrump #NeverHIllary #NoneOfTheAbove

  6. TheCatSaid (aka "TheCatSquid")

    OMG, OMG, OMG. I’ve just watched this short video clip of Bev Harris explaining what was discovered in just recent months.

    I’ve never heard the story in this way and seen the time line. It started by looking at local elections, and uncovered something HUGE in the last few months.

    This affects thousands of voting jurisdictions in the USA. (And outside the USA, too–wherever this popular vote tabulating software is used, by a range of voting machine companies.)

    And now we’ll have to listen to political analysts trying to figure out why X candidate did so well or so poorly in location ABC. If you watch this video (and the other videos at the Fitrakis link above, too) you’ll see that our election results do not necessarily have any relation to actual votes.

    No matter how much I thought I knew about election irregularities, this is shocking. It is widespread. We should be talking about election fraud–and doing something about it–instead of wasting our time trying to understand what are fictionalized election results.

    1. Edward Qubain

      After watching that disgusting video I feel like everyone should just publicly declare their votes and compare a public tally with the electronic voting results.

      1. TheCatSaid

        Preserving voter anonymity is important for a host of reasons. It’s one of the reasons electronic voting is maybe impossible to do well.

        What works well is hand-counting paper ballots in public (with multiple observers who are concerned citizens–not election staff) in the precinct location where they were cast. It’s also really fast!

        Another solution is to scan all the actual ballots at the voting precinct and make them available to the public online so anyone who wants to can count & check the results for themselves.

        Receipts are worse than nothing–potential for selling your vote, and doesn’t guarantee your vote was counted the same way it was cast. Any solution has to enable observers to monitor ALL the ballots, not just their own.

        1. Lambert Strether

          All very true. The additional nice thing about hand counting paper ballots in public is that it’s an opportunity for civic conviviality, at least afterward. I remember the Quebec referendum — 6 million population, votes counted in an evening, and some chicanery promptly exposed. Very much unlike this country!

        2. Edward Qubain

          Ordinarily voting should be anonymous. I am thinking here about what citizens can do when they think their vote has been stolen and the crooked government will not investigate the problem. Where I live the voting is electronic and there is no paper ballot as far as I can tell. If, say, there was a precinct where there was evidence of cheating and the public wanted to do something they could attempt to compile a public tally of how people voted and compare it with the electronic results. Even an incomplete list could reveal a problem.

  7. Edward Qubain

    It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters. More details are needed.

    At the rate this sorry campaign is going, only millionaires and T.V. pundits will be able to vote.

    1. Tertium Squid

      This isn’t Clinton v. Sanders anymore. This is about the sort of participation the party wants from American citizens.

    2. flora

      Clinton wins the early mail-in votes. Suppress the day-of votes to make sure the mail-in votes count the most. And if that still doesn’t work stop the counting and have the MSM declare her the winnah!

        1. TheCatSaid

          Also, mail-in / absentee ballots are one of the easiest ways to perpetrate fraud.

          If you look at the Bev Harris clip, where she reads out the specifications of the coding job, they include attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter. (Strictly illegal but there you go.) The code allowing for weighting each race (and each voter, or each demographic–as specific as you like) makes it possible to weight multiple races across multiple districts in seconds.

          The code in question is in use in the tabulating computers (the ones that accumulate the results from various machines and jurisdictions) all over the country.

          1. Edward Qubain

            “…attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter”

            Wow– so much for having an anonymous ballot.

        2. Edward Qubain

          Hi flora,

          That makes sense but is it enough to explain such a lopsided Clinton vote?

      1. Arizona Slim

        That is what happened here in AZ. The Hillster won the mail-in votes and then there was massive suppression on primary day.

        1. hunkerdown

          “Disqualify, defeat, put the Party back together later” — didn’t think she meant us, did we?

    3. TheCatSaid

      “It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters.”

      Yes, that’s exactly what happened. When voting machine numbers are reduced, it is done in carefully chosen locations to achieve a specific goal.

      Ironically, the first time I tried to vote, as a university student, there were long lines and after more than an hour I had to leave because I had something that I could not miss. At the time I had no idea this kind of thing could have happened deliberately.

      In the current primary, my mother showed up to vote and found out the voting location had changed, but she hadn’t been notified. It was too late in the day for her to find out and get to the new location. It never occurred to her that this kind of thing could have been deliberate.

      This kind of thing can be devastatingly effective. Puerto Rico is an exaggerated version of a tactic that’s been used by both parties for 16 years or more.

      1. TheCatSaid

        I should have clarified better. By reducing the machines most acutely in the poorest, most crowded areas Sanders’ share of the vote was impacted more than Clinton’s. I saw a video talking about this some days before the actual primary. The reduction in poll opening hours also impact the poorest voters the most, the implication being that those were the voters trending towards Sanders.

        1. different clue

          For charges this severe about a problem this serious, we need to be able to demonstrate that the video you saw is a “real” video rather than an “O’keefe” video.

  8. NYPaul

    Not meant to be absurd or perfectly analogous,


    just as the National Socialist German Worker’s Party couldn’t be reformed

    neither can

    The Democrats or Republicans.

    Walk away, start anew

  9. cassandra

    Although TheCatSaid mentioned him above, unsung but deserving investigative reporter Greg Palast, deserves mention on his own. In addition to the CA shenanigans, he has been documenting election fraud on a continuing basis for over a decade. Don’t be put off by his sensationalist style. Many of his revelations are truly unique; see, for example, his comparison of BP’s operations in the Caspian in Ajerbaijan with the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.

    1. TheCatSaid

      You’re right. Palast has done amazing investigative work on many crucial issues.
      * His revelations about the fracking accidents in the Caspian that preceded the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf were damning (in order to get the license to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP had lied on its application by stating that they had not had any accidents)
      * His uncovering of the deliberate negligence and economic interests that led to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina
      * His detailed work on vote purging in Florida and elsewhere

      His saucy style belies the devastating amount of detail he routinely uncovers.
      And he is absolutely fearless.

    2. Teejay

      I am put off my his sensationalistic style. It hurts his credibility. He covers important issues which I applaud him for. Sometimes I feel like I’m watching a Nick Danger sketch.

  10. ballard

    “What some people don’t understand is that the privatization of the surveillance state, the collection of all your information like phone calls, emails, Tweets, comments online, communication in your car, communication in your home, Facebook turning on the mic on your phone so they can listen to you throughout the day… all this information is USED by someone.

    One way they may use it, could be to figure out how you are going to vote. And that may determine whether or not your name is “mistakenly” left off a voter role when you go to cast your vote.”

    More from Scott Creighton on the California election fraud:

  11. Luis E. Pacheco

    Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. We cannot vote for the president. We have no vote in Congress, supposedly only ‘voice’. So the very notion of participating in the primaries for people for whom we are not allowed to actually vote, is the height of hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.