A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Strange Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

[rmstock]

This happened on Monday Feb 1, 2016 (as far as i can see it  no coin-toss was in play,
the coin-toss, which also aired on Dutch TV, was a hoax) :

Iowa Democratic Caucus Math and Arithmetic 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwmsPcGaT9s


Reported by C-Span TV
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County Iowa Caucus
By Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb
http://www.stewwebb.com/2016/02/03/clinton-voter-fraud-in-polk-county-iowa-caucus/

  "Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count
   of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
   
   Click link below to watch the video:
   
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus
   
   Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton
   
   
   
   Hillary-Clinton-Vote-Fraud-2016-02-03
   
   Reported by NPR–National Public Radio .org
   Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa
   For Hillary Clinton
   http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton
   http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/atc/2016/02/20160202_atc_hillary_clinton_wins_iowa_caucus_by_slim_margin_over_bernie_sanders.mp3
   
   Hillary Clinton got lucky Monday night. Very lucky.
   
   But not for the reasons some are alleging.
   
   Some have attributed her squeaker of a victory over Bernie Sanders in
   the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses to an improbable lucky streak
   of tie breaking coin tosses.
   
   It's been reported that there were as many as six sites where ties were
   decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The
   odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent. What's
   more, that gave her just slightly more than her margin of victory over
   Sanders — four delegates.
   
   Things that make you go hmm. Indeed.
   
   Here's proof: Watch one of these coin-toss tiebreakers in this video,
   taken by Univision reporter Fernando Peinado at a caucus precinct:
   
   Click on link below and watch video:
   
   http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton
   
   Except that doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, there were at least
   a dozen tiebreakers — and "Sen. Sanders won at least a handful," an
   Iowa Democratic Party official told NPR.
   
   Gone unmentioned so far is that even if Clinton won that Miracle Six —
   and there were no other coin tosses — it would make little difference
   in the outcome. That is, in part, because of the complicated way Iowa
   Democrats allocate their delegates — and what was being reported on
   election night and what wasn't.
   
   
   
   How-Delegates-are-awarded-in-Iowa
   
   Let's step back and explain that for a second; and this is tricky, so
   stay with us.
   
   First, understand that the state party reported a grand total of
   171,508 caucusgoers, the second-highest turnout in Iowa caucus history
   behind 2008. And no raw vote was — or is ever — broken out by candidate
   and recorded at the Democratic caucuses.
   
   That's because in Iowa, it's a delegate game.
   
   Iowa has a multistep process for picking delegates. Monday night was
   just Step 1. Here's how it works:
   
   1. There were 1,683 precinct caucuses on Iowa caucus night.
   
   2. Those precinct caucuses elected 11,065 delegates to the county
      conventions, which take place March 12.
   
   3. That universe of 11,065 delegates is whittled down to 1,406 who will
      attend congressional district (April 30) and state conventions (June 18).
   
   4. And here's the root of what's causing all the confusion: The
      breakdown of those 11,065 is not reported on caucus night.
   
   5. What IS reported, what Clinton's 49.9 to 49.6 percent
      tracing-paper-thin lead is based on, is "state delegate equivalents."
   
   6. Those are ESTIMATES of how many of those 11,065 will attend the
      congressional district and state conventions.
   
   So when those coin tosses are happening, they are elected delegates
   in that larger universe.
   
   That means, for Clinton to have picked up the four delegates, she would
   have had to have won not six in a row, but more like 47.
   
   A coin flip? Really?
   
   Yes, Iowa — and it's not alone — uses coin tosses to break ties in
   precincts that award an odd number of delegates.
   
   For example: Let's say five delegates are set to be awarded in Precinct
   1. There are 30 people for Clinton and 30 people for Sanders — and no
   one on either side can be swayed.
   
   The result: Clinton and Sanders get two delegates apiece. What happens
   to the final delegate? The caucuses revert to, you guessed, it, a coin
   toss.
   
   Does this happen often?
   
   It's pretty rare in a normal race, but this was no normal race. Clinton
   and Sanders were separated by a razor-thin 0.3 percentage point, or
   four "state delegate equivalents" — 701 for Clinton, 697 for Sanders
   and eight for Martin O'Malley. It was the closest result in 40 years of
   the Iowa Democratic caucus.
   
   What was that about 60 missing caucusgoers and a coin flip?
   
   As NPR's Jessica Taylor reports, the Des Moines Register explained how
   a tie happened at one precinct: After 60 registered caucusgoers were
   missing since the initial tally, and O'Malley's supporters had been
   redistributed, Clinton was assigned four delegates and Sanders got
   three. But one remained unassigned based on the initial count:
   
   "Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan
   delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and
   precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on
   such situations.
   "Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.
   A Clinton supporter correctly called 'heads' on a quarter flipped in
   the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate."
   Could this happen again this year?
   
   It's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. Again, as Taylor reports,
   seemingly unusual tiebreak methods are not new in politics. According
   to the National Council of State Legislatures, Wyoming uses coin tosses
   to break ties. Last year in Mississippi, the winner of a seat in the
   state Legislature was determined by drawing straws.
   
   Brett Neely also contributed to this report.
   
   http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton
   
   Popcorn: Hillary Camp 'Unnerved' By Iowa, Sanders Backers Demand Raw Vote Totals   
   http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/02/hmm-did-bernie-sanders-win-the-popular-vote-in-iowa-n2113672
   "

What next happens is total media madness inside the MSM :

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/695022998751842304
Infowars' 'Hillary for Prison' Meme Hits Supermarket Stands
"Hillary for Prison" movement sweeps the nation
Infowars.com - February 3, 2016
http://www.infowars.com/infowars-hillary-for-prison-meme-hits-supermarket-stands/


A Detailed Look at The New York Times' Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton
Michael Krieger | Posted Monday Feb 1, 2016 at 11:52 am
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/01/a-detailed-look-at-the-new-york-times-embarrassing-deceitful-and-illogical-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/

  "The New York Times' endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders
   in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of
   fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper's position in detail, but
   first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is
   going on in the bigger picture.
   
   In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such
   a sloppy job I can't help but think it may have done permanent damage to
   its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial
   board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned
   about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I
   thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong.
   Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious
   and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment
   candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.
   
   One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a
   plunge in the American public's perception of the country's powerful
   institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of
   bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea
   people are upset because "Washington can't get anything done." However,
   nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and
   serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very,
   very good at getting things done. Yes it's true Congress doesn't get
   anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The
   government doesn't work for the people.
   
   With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the
   New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed
   gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper
   has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth
   is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed
   reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on
   substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public
   interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the
   current paradigm, the paper doesn't want to rock the boat. What the New
   York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton
   endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight
   hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American
   establishment as any government institution.
   
   This is unfortunate, since the New York Times does some great work and has
   some fantastic journalists. Indeed, while I have shared many stories from
   the paper over the years, like Hillary Clinton, it has been tragically and
   consistently wrong on some of the most important issues of our time. Wall
   Street on Parade recently published an article highlighting a few of them,
   such as the paper's support for the Iraq War and a dismantling of Glass
   Steagall. While the paper has publicly admitted those opinions were
   mistakes, by endorsing Hillary, such apologies come across as insincere at
   best.
   
   As you read the Hillary endorsement, you can't help but sense a bit of fear
   and desperation on behalf of the paper. Indeed, it becomes quite clear that
   the editorial board isn't actually supporting Clinton as much as it is
   scrambling to defend the status quo. Much like Congress, the New York Times
   isn't working in the public interest. Rather, it's working to maintain and
   defend a current system characterized corruption, militarism and injustice
   — a system which is destroying the social fabric of this once great nation.
   The reason it fights to maintain this system, is because that system works
   well for the New York Times. As such, the editorial board seems more than
   content to continue to provide liberal cover for status quo criminality.
   
   So without further ado, let's take a closer look at the endorsement. What
   follows are excerpts from the New York Times piece, Hillary Clinton for the
   Democratic Nomination:
   
          For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have
      been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing,
      bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the
      most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the
      other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to
      nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential
      candidates in modern history.
   
          Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party.
      She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of
      state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady
      with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times
      editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for
      Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing
      so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
   
   These first two paragraphs set the stage for the entire piece. While it
   starts off proudly pointing out that Democrats are debating real issues,
   the following paragraph immediately focuses on superficial things, such as
   her gender and the fact that she has served in many important positions of
   power within imperial America.
   
          Mrs. Clinton's main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described
      Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people,
      including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and
      the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs.
      Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues.
      Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including
      the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
   
          In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience
      or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break
      up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a
      Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated
      middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them
      aren't realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable,
      proposals in both areas.
   
   In the above paragraphs, the paper is forced to admit that Sanders is
   fighting for economic justice and reduced militarism, but then doesn't
   offer a conclusion as to whether he is right on these issues and merely
   brushes his positions off as "unrealistic." It once again simply zeroes in
   on all the "experience" Hillary has attained during the lustful pursuit of
   money and power that has characterized much of her life.
   
   The Times goes on to confidently proclaim that Clinton has "good,
   achievable proposals" for dealing with the crime syndicate known as the big
   banks, yet fails to mention that Obama also talked a good game in 2008 and
   still turned out to be a perfect status quo puppet. Obama's deceit and
   cronyism is a big reason why the American public is so enraged this
   election, yet the paper believes Hillary, with an unparalleled history of
   corporate sponsorship is supposed to be trusted. Can they really be this
   stupid?
   
   Skipping a few paragraphs, the endorsement starts to become downright
   absurd. We see the following:
   
          Mr. Sanders has scored some rhetorical points against Mrs. Clinton for
      her longstanding ties to Wall Street, but she has responded well, and it
      would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that
      case, given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the
      business establishment.
   
   This is where the Times suddenly starts conveniently forgetting that she is
   running against Bernie Sanders as opposed to the Republicans. It
   insultingly brushes off Sanders' justified points on her and her husband
   being in the pocket of Wall Street by saying "she has responded well."
   
   How has she responded well exactly? It doesn't tell us. I for one do recall
   her shamelessly saying she supported Wall Street due to the attacks of
   9/11, did I miss something else? Instead of explaining to readers how she
   supposedly justified her financier ties, the paper goes on to discuss
   Republicans. This is very dishonest and condescending.
   
   While that part was bizarre enough, it gets even more confused and
   irrational when it comes to foreign policy. For example:
   
          As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with
      important successes, for the nation's benefit. She was the secretary
      President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the
      world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The
      combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief
      diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United
      States to repair relations around the world that had been completely
      trashed by the previous administration.
   
          Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr.
      Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her
      earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced
      that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt
      that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with
      infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican
      contenders.
   
   The paper claims that as Secretary of State she "allowed the United States
   to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by
   the previous administration." I keep trying to understand exactly what they
   mean by that. How exactly did that happen. By revelations that the NSA has
   been secretly spying on the entire planet? By droning children including
   American citizens to death all over the world via a shadowy program of
   questionable legality? Or did she accomplish it by leading the charge in
   the destruction of Libya, which is now a failed state and an ISIS breeding
   ground? Perhaps I missed something.
   
   The the paper then doubles down on this preposterous claim by stating "we
   have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power
   effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the
   leading Republican contenders."
   
   I'm wondering where this confidence springs from since it certainly
   couldn't be from her track record. More importantly, why is the New York
   Times comparing her to the Republicans when it comes to militarism when
   this is a primary endorsement against Bernie Sanders. This is the second
   time the paper has chosen to shift comparisons to the Republican side as
   opposed to Sanders.
   
   Next, the paper tries to defend her position on the enormous corporate
   giveaway masquerading as a trade deal known as the Trans Pacific
   Partnership (TPP). It writes:
   
          Mrs. Clinton, who has been accused of flip-flopping on trade, has shown
      a refreshing willingness to learn and to explain, as she has in detail, why
      she changed her mind on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific
      Partnership. She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the
      forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than
      any of the Republicans.
   
   First of all, she hasn't "been accused of flip-flopping on trade," she most
   definitively did flip-flop on trade. Recall last year's post: Where Does
   Hillary Stand on the TPP? 45 Public Statements Tell You Everything You Need
   to Know.
   
   Moreover, the Times tries to make it seem as if she has suddenly seen the
   light on this trade deal, when in reality she refused to comment on it
   until she was able to determine which way the political wind was blowing.
   All you have to do is go back and look at the headline from the Daily Kos
   article from 2015: The Reason Hillary Clinton Refuses to Discuss the TPP.
   
   The paper then ends this paragraph with a sweeping statement replete with
   absolutely no facts to back it up: "She is likely to do more to help
   workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have
   done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans."
   
   Notice the last part of that line. Yep, it once again compares her
   favorably to Republicans, when this is a primary endorsement against Bernie
   Sanders. Why is the paper not comparing her to Sanders? I think we all know
   the answer.
   
   Incredibly,the paper does it yet again in its closing paragraph.
   
          Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a
      vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading
      Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have
      a real shot at prosperity, women's rights are enhanced, undocumented
      immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are
      nurtured and the country is kept safe.
   
   Sanders isn't mentioned by name, but Republicans are brought into focus yet
   again. At the end of the day, this entire endorsement is a gigantic puff
   piece designed to pull on emotional heartstrings and reader bias against
   Republicans, as opposed to presenting any detailed comparison between
   Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the existential issues facing the
   nation. The reason they have chosen this tactic is clear — it's because
   Sanders has the track record, credibility and courage to actually take on
   the status quo and this scares the New York Times. This is because, unlike
   the American people, the New York Times quite likes things the way they
   are. This is the real reason the editorial board supports Hillary, it just
   can't come out and say it.
   
   For related articles, see:
   
  "Non-Official Cover" – Respected German Journalist Blows Whistle on How the
   CIA Controls the Media
   
   This is How the U.S. Government Convinces a Newspaper to Kill a Story
   
   20-Year CBS News Veteran, Sharyl Attkisson, Details Massive Censorship and
   Propaganda in Mainstream Media
   
   Editor in Asia Leaves Bloomberg News Citing Censorship
   
   In Liberty,
   Michael Krieger "

The keyboards are still steaming in New York ...

[rmstock]

The count of the Clinton caucus and delegates looks like a rat game, as
no-one actually sees who these people are, in contrast to the Bernie
Sanders caucus voters, who clearly can be seen raising their hands for
voting. That makes me wonder how far does the Clinton Crime Family have 
its stranglehold in society?  Does Hillary Clinton have dirt and smut for
blackmail on a majority of the Democratic Caucus in America ??

[rmstock]

Here's the analysis of a Sanders Caucus member. He speaks about some
shady things happening. For instance that all the Precinct Captains for
Clinton have been running around with a thing called the Hillary App on
their cellphones, getting live updates AND instructions what to do,
even to at the last moment dump a couple Clinton Caucus voters into the
O'Malley Caucus camp, and thus getting that strange result of the tip 
of the Camel's Nose `Too Close To Call' race in the end. How likely is
it that all important elections in recent years have ALL been such
Camel's Nose length `Too Close To Call' races ? Think about that. He   
goes on to say that it even looked like the Hillary App was programmed
to create a `Too Close To Call' result on purpose. Why would someone
steer an election in such a direction ?

by Brandon Sergent , Published on Feb 2, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2pTD-DGmk4