Skip to content

Bernie Sanders is worried about Microsoft’s role in the Iowa caucuses

January 29, 2016

  We have been told time and time again by Democrats that there is no such thing as voter fraud. We have also been told that because there is no voter fraud that the Republicans who push for voter ID and voter reform laws are racists who are looking to use this non-issue as an excuse to keep minorities from voting because they are racists.

  So you can imagine my surprise when I learned a couple of days ago that the Sanders campaign is worried about Microsoft’s role in the Iowa caucuses and the possibility (although unspoken) that Microsoft could be trying to rig the Iowa election for Hillary Clinton.

  Here is more:

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is raising questions about the involvement of Microsoft in the Iowa Caucuses, now just days away, and has built an independent system to check the official results.

For the first time this year, Microsoft partnered with the Iowa Democratic and Republican Parties to provide a technology platform with which the parties will run their caucuses. The software giant created separate mobile apps for each party, which officials at hundreds of caucuses across the state will use to report out results from individual precincts to party headquarters for tabulation.

The arrangement has aroused the suspicions of aides to Sanders, who regularly warn that corporate power and the billionaire class are trying to hijack democracy. Pete D’Alessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders’ campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: “You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free.”

  Of course while the Sanders campaign did not come right out and say it they are hinting that Microsoft might be trying to hijack the Iowa caucuses in order to hand Hillary Clinton the victory. Why else would they be concerned? Microsoft has donated substantial amounts of money to Hillary Clinton after all:

Other Sanders aides noted that Microsoft employees have donated several hundred thousand dollars to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton over her career, and questioned why the Iowa Democratic Party didn’t partner with a software company based in Iowa.

  This idea is nothing new as Bunkerville pointed out in this post; back in 2012 there were reports that a foreign company with ties to Barack Obama would be in charge of reporting election results. There were also reports that people who tried to vote for Mitt Romney saw their votes cast for Barack Obama. And on top of that were the reports that the button one had to touch to vote for Mitt Romney was much smaller than the button one must touch to vote for Barack Obama and unless one hit the Romney button perfectly the vote would be cast for Obama.

  Here is more from Bunkerville:

“Obama donor’s company funds controversial election firm” reads the headline. We now are turning over our election software to a foreign company that happens to support Obama.The Drudge Report yesterday ran a feature titled “Foreign company buys U.S. election results reporting firm.” The article documented that SCYTL, based in Barcelona, acquired 100 percent of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States. Drudge reports that the  best part is that the election results are redirected not to a USA server, but to a server overseas.

Why is a software company based in Barcelona Spain(SCYTL) now in charge of counting our votes in the upcoming General Election on November 6th.  Did the Federal Elections Commission approve of this ?  (FEC) Did the Congress of the United States approve of this ?

  This was laughed off by the left and by the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) as nothing more than a conspiracy theory designed to make excuses for Mitt Romney’s loss but now that Bernie Sanders is making what amounts to the same claim I wonder how the mainstream media and his supporters will react if Bernie Sanders loses in Iowa. The only difference is in the framing of the argument with Bernie Sanders trying to use this as an example of billionaires trying to hijack the election whereas the conservatives tried to pin the blame on the Democrats.

  I guess Bernie Sanders did not get the memo about voter fraud not being a legitimate issue…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

18 Comments leave one →
  1. petermc3 permalink
    January 29, 2016 9:41 pm

    Imagine the outrage of any Democrat losing to a Republican in November never mind a fellow rat Democrat in the primaries. With busloads of illegals along with the dead voting early and often, addicts supplied with street money and 97% of the negro voters staying on the plantation there is no way any Democrat should lose the presidential election. Come on Bernard, don’t let the NWO elites throw the election ’cause if you win that will be eight years you won’t have to pay for your own Depends.

    Liked by 3 people

    • January 29, 2016 9:52 pm

      If the Democrats lose this election it will be a miracle! It is still stunning to me that despite the fact that in some areas more than 100% of registers voters voted in the 2012 election the left can still claim there is no voter fraud. But it does not surprise me…


  2. January 30, 2016 9:00 am

    Thanks for the shout out. This is as worrisome as any other matter of our concern. If “they” can hijack our elections via electronic means, there is no way back. Setting aside general rigged balloting, this will finish it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 30, 2016 9:15 am

      You are welcome. This could be a big problem which the left didn’t want to acknowledge the last time around because it will be very hard to prove if indeed it does happen. Bernie is framing it a little different by claiming it is the billionaires who are doing this and perhaps that will bring the left around to our concerns. Whatever it takes I guess…

      Liked by 1 person

    • lou222 permalink
      January 30, 2016 9:52 am

      Bunker, we saw in the Minnesota election awhile back with Al Franken that they can produce paper ballots when they need them. You know they show up in trunks of cars and basements…the usual places for uncounted ballots. AND, there is just enough to put that person over the limit that cannot be questioned. As usual, the “other guy” doesn’t question it or put up a fight….Al Franken has been a joke, but he is a joke that has done damage to all of us.

      Liked by 2 people

      • January 30, 2016 7:31 pm

        But there is no voter fraud, right?! The left loves to ignore this and the fact that in some areas of the country over 100% of registered voters voted, I would love to hear their explanation for that!

        Liked by 1 person

      • lou222 permalink
        January 30, 2016 7:51 pm

        Yep, we saw that over 100% in 2012, didn’t we? Apparently that did not send up a red flag to the political “Right”….stupid as they have become. You know what I think of stupid people!

        Liked by 1 person

      • January 30, 2016 7:57 pm

        And not only that but every single vote went to Obama, what are the chances of that happening?! But of course the left will ignore it because there is no voter fraud…


      • lou222 permalink
        January 30, 2016 8:33 pm

        Yep, until a Republican wins, then they will start screaming for a RECOUNT!

        Liked by 1 person

      • January 30, 2016 8:42 pm

        Yeah, then suddenly voter fraud will be a big issue!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. lou222 permalink
    January 30, 2016 9:48 am

    Good article, Bunker! As for the voter fraud, we saw that first hand in 2012, didn’t we? I do not trust the machines, never have. I stand at the machine as I put my ballot inside and watch it ring up a number, but as to who it voted for, who knows. I also have to question how good the security is when ballot boxes are delivered from the precincts, I saw problems with that when I was election judging. We know the counting, being done by foreigners could be a major issue and the only thing we are told, as you said, is that we are being racist… is it racist to want to see an ID to make sure you are who you say you are? They then tell us that the poor or those on welfare don’t have an ID….bullcrap! If they get welfare, they have a form of ID. Those ID’s are FREE at the Drivers License places for those that cannot afford them. No, I do not buy into the fact that poor people just cannot afford an ID. That should take care of that, but it doesn’t…we are still racists. Oh well. One more thought….I see alot of those “welfare” people going into the liquor stores for booze and smokes…I KNOW they have to show an ID for that….enough said!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. January 30, 2016 7:57 pm

    Whoever has the best Hackers wins!

    Liked by 2 people

    • January 30, 2016 7:58 pm

      Pretty much!

      Liked by 1 person

      • January 30, 2016 8:14 pm

        Remember those old B/W shows Steve that had the line of votes and some were given ‘dining flatware’ to vote for a certain candidate? Today, you make your selection -electronic vote- and the ticket comes out showing you voted for the other person! and you don’t even get and Green Stamps, flatware or nothin! Some say depending where (which state location) it would vary [I guess whoever paid the most got the machines rigged in their favor].

        Liked by 1 person

      • January 30, 2016 8:28 pm

        I have never seen that video before, thanks for sharing it! We have said in the past that we really do not have a choice in the elections because we only get to choose between candidates who have been selected for us and now we cannot even rest knowing that we actually get to do that because these machine will decide who we vote for. This is pretty scary to say the least.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lou222 permalink
      January 30, 2016 8:34 pm

      Pretty bad when it comes down to that….guess there are alot more “cheaters” than honest people!

      Liked by 2 people

      • lou222 permalink
        January 30, 2016 8:38 pm

        Even WITH a paper ballot, it can still be fraud, like I said. They will find the ballots “somewhere” and they will be accepted.

        Liked by 2 people

      • January 30, 2016 8:44 pm

        You are right, even with paper there can be fraud. This just takes it to a whole new level!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: