DamienSF's comments

It's referring to the Richie Allen Show: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9k_-YZ04xSnXTwM5_25L9g

The price would go down until it finds enough buyers for a given price and there will be a price for which the stock is attractive again. For instance, if a company raises capital by doubling the volume of its shares, at half the price the company will be worth the same so there is no reason why nobody wouldn't buy shares of the stock at half the price. Now if there is for some reason 0 buyers, the stock is illiquid and the stock price goes to 0 but the company can still issue new shares.

The shares are issued on the public market so market participants would buy the shares. Order book and market orders will determine at which price these shares would be bought.

That would be true for private companies but I'm not sure what would prevent public companies to raise capital by issuing new shares. Obviously the stock price would take a hit but new capital would be raised. That's the function that public markets are supposed to fulfill.

If you read beyond the headline, you'll see that this is actually the conclusion of the article.

Paper ballots works well in every European democracies and is far more transparent and secured than the electronic machines we have today. As a matter of fact, Germany has tested electronic machines but went back to paper ballots to preserve the reliability of the vote. The article doesn't just cast the doubt on electronic voting machines, it shows they are set-up to enable election fraud. How many more proofs is needed to convince voters that sadly, elections results can't be trust?

The resistance isn't about the use of electronic systems for our elections but about the poor reliability and lack of transparency of the current systems. The vote count should be reliable and transparent. Is it to much to ask?

Systems aren't broken, they are set-up to enable corruption. The article points to a clear intent of enabling election fraud.

The article doesn't conclude "computers can't count correctly" but instead it says "voting machines are set-up to enable election fraud".

Thanks, good point. Indeed she works for Cendyn.

Wow! The registrant email is [email protected] which could be Evan McMullin, the candidate financed by the anti-Trump movement within the GOP. Would there be a way to verify that Evan McMullin is the real registrant?

If you can't verify that the printed results have been counted correctly, it does not bring more guarantee. At least, the paper ballots should be kept and audited which is not the case in many States.

There have been many statistical analysis pointing out to potential election fraud due to the electronic counting of the votes. For those who missed it, here is a comprehensive report on potential election fraud during recent Democratic primaries: http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_E...

The last part is related to the electronic counting of the votes. Here what Fritz Scheuren, the 100th President of the American Statistical Association, had to say on the Democratic primaries “as a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data […] the difference between the reported totals, and our best estimate of the actual vote, varies considerably from state to state. However these differences are significant—sometimes more than 10%—and could change the outcome of the election”

So you are implying that Obama would have chosen as his counselor the type of guy willing to waste his time with a crackpot astronaut.

It is also interesting to note that Podesta is a long time proponent of a disclosure on UFOs -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khqZEXpfwjE

The authors of this report can be taken seriously as they put their professional reputation on the line. I am not sure that Fritz Scheuren, professor of statistics at George Washington University and the 100th President of the American Statistical Association (ASA), would risk his reputation by making statements we can't defend. Here is what he says: “as a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data.”

The debate around exit polls will only be settled with the publication of raw data by Edison Media Research. With so much polemic on the topic you would think that it would be in their interest to make these data public if they had nothing to hide. This isn't even a new issue. Exit polls data transparency was already the object of a debate during the 2004 Presidential Elections: http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_question...

On one hand, we have an electronic vote count which can't be verified and on the other, we have raw exit polls data that are kept secret. What kind of Democracy is that??? Isn't transparency one of the most fundamental principal in a Democracy?

The American election process isn't transparent at all... How can we claim our elections to be democratic?

Election officials still need to respect election law and the National Voters Right Act which hasn't been the case in many instances according to the report.

Political parties are free to make their own rules to the extent that they comply with election law and the National Voters Right Act. The report points out many instances in which election officials broke the law.

Now a party may still decide to run its internal elections like a banana republic but in that case, this party should certainly not be named the Democratic party...

It has a lot to do with access to mass exposure by the candidates. The reason why Bernie had his message heard by so many is because he participated in debates covered by mainstream media through his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Third-party candidates don't gain this type of exposure during their primaries as the media don't cover their selection process.

Theoretically third-party candidates could gain exposure through the General Election debate however, the Commission on Presidential Debates which organize the debate makes it very difficult for a third-party candidate to be eligible to the debate. Indeed candidates need "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations" as defined by the CPD.

You may then wonder who is the CPD? The CPD is a PRIVATE organization financed with PRIVATE money. They claim to be nonpartisan even though it is governed by former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. No wonder why they don't want to open the door to third-party candidates...