Whats going on today w/ Anonymous

I take it you favor the Republican then. Because for this election a protest vote is effectively a Republican vote.

I think ideologies are more trouble than they are worth so I try to ignore party identities and focus on who respects rules of evidence most.

I said that one party is Stupid and Evil, and the other party is Evil and Stupid, and I couldn't tell which was which, and somehow you get that I favor the Republicans.

Okay, then...moving on.

I do admit to enjoy hearing about how upset the left and MSM is about trump, and how he's shaking them up, but I pay absolutely no attention to what the candidates say. Since they are lying, there's no sense worrying about the form of the lies.

I prefer using first principles, since those are unchanging, and not dependent on fashion, whim, or party, just on being human, not thinking that gov can solve problems, and trust the people and the process.

After the past week or two, it's hard to think that anyone trusts either major US party. They are evil and stupid. Hmmm, I think I mentioned that before. But after what the FBI director, DOJ chief, former president, and SC justice have done recently, I'm thinking the Democrats are corrupt to the core, while the GOP is mostly just stupid. Both exhibit both characteristics, but I think the Democrats have become more overtly corrupt recently. They are feeling their oats. Maybe we'll have some upset that will shake up the cosmopolitans and force them to look around.

I think that Public Choice Theory explains our gov a lot better than the good governance theory I was taught in civics class.

It all shakes out to be an interesting Nov. I'm thinking Trump will win, since Clinton is too obviously corrupt. But I was dead wrong about 2012, so here's some salt.

I'm thinking Clinton will win because she is too obviously
Corrupt.

The system is fail. We the people really need to focus on the local community and elect those who are proven to be honest with a value of the rule of law. People who would push back against the federal government, people who are accessible to the public and that actually live in the community in which they govern.

Imho we are going to see more violence and chaos leading up to November, especially at the convention of both parties. More terrorism and more racially charged protests resulting in violence.

Couple that with the possibility of another financial crisis and there you have the perfect storm.

Half the country is Republican and half is Democratic. So I don't think it is right to say one or the other party is evil or stupid. We are all in this together. The key thing is to focus on the facts regarding the problems we are facing rather than particular personalities, who can only do so much.

No, not at all. According to Pew Research, 39% are independent, 32% are Democrats and 23% are GOP.

You are always going on about facts. The fact is, Clinton met with Lynch. That is corruption. Comey did not indict Clinton (the other Clinton),. That is corruption. That fact is that a Supreme Court justice showed her biases in a political way. That is corruption. It's there for all to see. If you ignore this,. what does it say about you? I call the Party that did this corrupt and evil, and hopefully too stupid to understand how deeply they've upset the great unwashed masses. Brexit II, anyone?

We are? That's odd, since both major parties of the US do things I consider frankly evil. I'm not part of that, I want nothing to do with the people who do such things. So, I don't really see that we are 'all in this together.' In fact, the elite ruling class feels just the opposite, that they are above the fray, and they don't give a fig what happens to the great unwashed masses. That is the opposite of "being in this together."
I noticed that the California legislature exempted itself from their new gun laws. That is not how "we're in this together" works. It is how "I'm special" works.

You keep talking about facts. I don't think you know what that word means. Facts have never mattered in an election. In 'fact'(hehe), elections are about who can lie the most convincingly.
And finally, politics is about nothing but personalities. Haven't you noticed that before?

Yeah, it's gonna get interesting out there this election season.

Nice fantasy.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I'm old enough to remember 1968. Things are shaping up to be a long hot summer.

I know, right?

Facts are only a first step. First, you have to agree on what facts are, then what facts are relevant, then you have to agree on what those facts mean. That is the tricky part. That is where things go nonlinear.

Do we agree on the facts I stated above? That Clinton met with Lynch. That Comey failed to recommend prosecution. That Ginsberg stated her political opinions about a current candidate?

If so, do you agree with me that those facts show how corrupt the Democrats are? If not, what makes their actions not corrupt?

Riddle me this,
How does a party that is responsible for jim crow laws and stood staunch against the civil rights movement in 50's and 60's become the party that minorities are compelled to support?

Southern Democrats were not the same as northern Democrats.

I'm not as bothered by the private email server as a lot of people. The thing that upsets me most about Clinton is her promotion of quackery, especially a flavor called "functional medicine." That is a serious lapse in her respect for proper rules of evidence.

On the other hand, Trump is antivax, which is crazy.

Trump scares me to death however Hillary is absolutely corrupt and as the saying goes...
Also Margate Sanger is one of Hillary's role models by her own admission.

Of course you already know who Margate Sanger is because you are the internet that Al Gore invented.

Evolution? A new narrative? Churchill said "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Funny thing about facts. I see the email server scandal as evidence of Hillary's lack of respect for the proper rules of evidence. In fact, it looks as if it was set up to illegally evade FOIA requests, and it looks now as if she got away with it. I'd think you'd be furious, and yet you say it is of no concern.

Why are you giving a pass to Hillary for this? It's a pretty obvious attempt to evade proper rules of evidence.

If the only choices are between evil or stupid, then we are being given no choice at all.

I'll take stupid over evil any day. Luck up or fuck up, with evil nothing is by accident.

Lots of people are gonna be trying to hack into Hillary's communications because she's head of the State Dept and she's Hillary. So I imagine she wanted to limit access to the server she used for her emails. So long as she allows legit people access when that is needed, I don't see that as a big deal. Worthy of a reprimand and some education about the security structure set up by the IT dept for State.

Given that Federal IT infrastructure is not all that secure, it is hard to blame a big target like Hillary for wanting physical control over her server. Although that did not work out so well for her.

Rules of evidence aren't the same thing as Federal rules about email servers. Rules of evidence are more like rules of logic and probability.

I had to google Sanger. Born 1879, an early activist for women having access to abortion. Personally I think MDs doing abortions in a safe way is better than women getting perforations in their uterus and the like.

Oops my Google fail. Seems there is a fair amount of misinfo about Sanger out there. She was pro birth control and anti abortion. https://rewire.news/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

This how it looks to me... If I vote I'm writing in Putin, maybe Trump, but there s a new gal saying all the right things.. Jill Stein or something like that.
One thing Trump knows is money doesn't buy happiness, and we he knows Putin isnt a bad guy that its all been an act to demonize Putin and Iran for that matter. Iran actually hung one of Rothschild's bankers... Iceland threw them out... the entire system is collapsing, and none of them know what to do about that except create diversions, like WWIII

On one side you have the Military industrial pharmaceutical prison media security nanny state industrial complex, on the other side there is we the people and most of them are hypnotized with intellectual frames of reference only up to dealing with the Kardashians and what the neighbor did during his cook out last weekend...Then there are those awakened but thoroughly confused. Then there are a minority of kooks know they are trying to kill us all, and who believe life should make sense.

Some folks chortle that THEY have never been in a nutball cult like scientology, about what superior mentality they possess.
Those same methods work on you that worked on us... only we have the benefit of rerouting the frayed wiring in our minds..

The IDENTICAL METHODS are being used to control what the public believes to be true as are used by Hubbard in Dianetics to cause readers to believe they had engrams and a reactive mind.... the only thing different is the shore story and advertising budgets.

See my latest posting HERE: https://arnielerma.wordpress.com/

And see my take on the political lay of the land here: https://www.quora.com/Are-we-really-on-the-brink-of-WWIII/answer/Arnaldo-Lerma

Sidebar:
One problem scientologists and ex scientologists of the DM Era scientology have is a button on AUTHORITY
STILL CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT AUTHORITY?

Scientologists are conditioned by years of Hubbard's use of Authority Suggestion. (Authority suggestion is described as the most potentially damaging and dangerous form of covert hypnosis in the Anderson report, Hypnosis chapter.) This metaphorically creates grand canyon sized channels down which thinking now naturally flows, for scientologists AND FOR EX SCIENTOLOGISTS.

They are conditioned by years of this conditioning to unquestioningly accept AUTHORITY or anything that smells like authority...

Authority Suggestion is why the AMA told its members in the early 1960's to stop wearing coats and ties and to wear white lab coats. The white lab coat enabled AUTHORITY suggestion.

Hubbard knew this and used this, which is also a rational for calling his FRAUD by the name Scientology and why the E_meter is an essential stage prop.. .Because people see the IMPLIED AUTHORITY of Science. This is also why they make up stories about how GREAT Hubbard was..

http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-the-hypnotist1.htm

This grand canyon of bad thinking is evident in most ex-members to their own detriment.

My Replies to comments from SPs'r'US

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206926896758677&set=p.10206926896758677&type=3

I'd noted the obedience to authority drum beat and thought it out of character to the $cientology I once knew... but that new emphasized aspect of the mental programming is absolutely necessary for DM's control...it is literally the only thing he has...it might be related to the fact of the dwarf.
Before DM, there was Hubbard, who did not rely on authority, he was "source", the "operator of the trance", the God, founder, creator figure.



DM has nothing, not even physical height, but claims AUTHORITY to run the trance... So he or his lawyers/writers have pushed this idea that authority is good and authority must be obeyed., that authority is dignified, and authority is and has been made important.

I've noted that ex-scientologists from Hubbard's scientology are more like pirates in demeanor. The Dwarf(tm) Scientologists and ex's all seem to believe they must always defer to the designated authority to form opinions or get advice...

This was not the case before Miscavige. it was not like this in the 70's... we were more like pirates...we were the authority!! Hubbard had altitude as the guru, as the source... the chief of the pirates.. DM has nothing except obedience to AUTHORITY, so the idea has been written into the post-dwarf writings, and been grilled and drilled into the current crop of members and ex's. ever since the great Hubbard's vistaril induced flush from this plane of existence into the bowels of hell.

END OF RANT

Sanger was a eugenics advocate and a racist, hillary was forced to back-pedal on her saying that it was the times she lived in.

OK, I guess those facts aren't helping us sort out the issue, now are they? We have the same facts, and radically different understanding of those facts, which is what I've been saying all along.

Your argument makes no sense, BTW. You admit she set up the server to limit access, but her plan was to limit access by we, the people. She had no right to do that. And to use the same server for private and work emails is the ultimate in careless stupidity, or a deliberate act to prevent the people paying her salary from finding out what she's been up to.

Facts go by the wayside when people want to push their agenda. Clinton deliberately set up a server to defeat open gov, and somehow, you've spun that into something benign and understandable

What did you think of Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch? Was that just about grandkids, or was it more nefarious? I'm curious to hear how you spin that meeting.

What I said about Clinton's email, that she'd want physical control of her email server, is based upon how I would feel if bad guys were trying to hack my stuff all the time.

Using personal email for official work stuff is wrong. But let him who is without sin throw the first stone.

Yes the same facts can lead to competing explanations. Sometimes we can estimate which explanation is more likely to be true. Sometimes the evidence supports one side so strongly it would be perverse to reject that side. In the Clinton email case, I think reasonable people may disagree.

But in any event there is no such thing as 100% private email. Courts can order people to surrender hard drives or other records. Clinton lives in a fishbowl and likely knows this.

I read some of Clinton's state dept emails at Wikileaks. Snooze fest.

Bill Clinton appointed Loretta Lynch as attorney general. So there is an old friendly connection there. I think if he wanted a secret conversation with her he could arrange that easily enough and we'd never hear about it.

I don't know where to begin with all this. Maybe I will pick one point. A crew of the top KGB guys took over the valuable stuff when the USSR collapsed. They run the oil and gas industry, for example. And Russian organized crime is under their thumb.

Putin rose to the top in that environment of ruthless conquest. There's a trail of dead and missing people behind him. But the worst thing about him is the misinformation he dumps on his own people. I watched that play out during his invasion of Ukraine. No legit leader manipulates the press to profoundly mislead his people.

I notice that you didn't address the rules of evidence issue. But wow, can you spin.

I wonder what Putin thought of them? I'm sure he's read them all, probably in real time.

All they did was destroy the DOJ. Not bad for a 25 minute talk.
Loretta Lynch destroyed the trust in the DOJ, and that will affect 340M Americans in the coming years. Do you really want a DOJ in bed with the President?
And, honestly, are that you incredibly naive? Yes, Bill appointed Lynch, which means even MORE reason not to have contact with her. That you accept the spin does not make me think well of your ability to understand politics. The fact he appointed her to the office makes that meeting MORE incredibly wrong, not less.

I'll give you this, TI, you are a damn good top, spinning the truth to fit your prejudices.

You must be new here. TI is a type of troller that doesn't use typical tactics such as obscenities or silly memes. Rather he/she likes to point out all possible points regardless of his/her actual view.

Actually I've been around since Enturb. I just like talking to TI. He's the perfect progressive, and since I don't really understand progressives, it helps me understand how certain people think.

I hate politics for the divisiveness of it. It divides people in order to control them. A nasty business we could do without.

It's pretty funny, watching how people will excuse really terrible things, as long as they think it'll get them some political advantage. No one in their right mind would support Clinton (or Trump), and yet, because politics, here we are, facing such a terrible choice.

Politics, dividing the people since time immemorial

I wish you would not accuse me of bad faith so often. Maybe I did not understand what you meant by "rules of evidence issue." To me, rules of evidence mean correctly following appropriate tests involving corroboration, falsification, logic, and parsimony. I do not think of administrative rules as the same thing.

My apologies. I thought later I'd been a bit too harsh.

It appears that you and I have different ideas about administrative rules. The administrative rules are in place, in part, to ensure the rules of evidence. We use the paper trail to find out what people did, as opposed to what they say they did. It's obvious to many that Clinton subverted the process deliberately, which is to say, subverted democracy.

Can we agree that Comey gave Clinton a pass in that he said she had no intent, but the law says intent is not a factor in prosecuting the crime. He could have charged under under the law as written. Do we agree on that?

Sounds like a question a Fed would ask.

Very interesting thoughts.
Margaret Sanger was really a butt ugly Nazi Eugenicist. She would have been the scourge of her own making considering how she derived whom would have whatever done to them by her own definitions. There is without a scintilla of doubt that the Hildebeast is as corrupt as we've ever seen in public life. Yet this is where we find 'ourselves right now today. If Trump makes it, we CAN ONLY PRAY, HOPE, AND REMAIN EVER VIGILANT, TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE, and complete what he has agreed to accomplish in the name of the people.
Only time will tell. Yet I find agreement with most all of your and others statements as of right now.

Very well and succinctly stated...
Xander

This thread has some of the best and most thoughtful posts I've seen in a very long while........ I am very very impressed, you are all paying very close attention, and it is very impressive.
Xander

Xander you're a fucking space cadet

It's a bloody yawn fest in here.

We took time out to recharge our brains, you should try it sometime.

Isn't that why we're Anonymous? If the only choices we're shown are evil or stupid, we choose the third option. We choose to fight back, through protests and information. That's why the Bill of Rights was written, to allow We the People to to fix things when the government becomes corrupt, as was the British government in the 18th century. Our freedom of speech gives us power, and Anonymous is where we can put our voices together to get things done.
Besides, people mistake money for power. While money does get you a great deal of influence, the real power in the world is information. That's why blackmail works, that's how people keep control of others, and thats how corrupt organizations keep their people in check and under their thumb. As Anonymous, we have the ability to take that power, as people who have the knowledge, ability, and incentive required to get it done. As people believe in anonymity, who believe in the freedom of information, and people who believe in not being controlled by another entity, we should liberate the information.
How is anything the government's doing any better than anything the Church of Scientology was doing before we did something about it? They're using the same methods (albeit on a larger scale) to control people for their own selfish reasons: Power. If anything, what the people involved in US government and politics are doing is far worse, because instead of affecting a few thousand people, it's directly affecting the lives of 318.9 million people and indirectly affecting the lives of 7.1 billion people.
And what are we doing? We're talking about it. We're sitting on our computers, typing things that only our fellow Anons will see, things that will make no difference in the long run. As Anonymous, we need to stand together and DO something about it.

--AnonymousKnown

hey, anything in Miami anytime soon??

Very well stated.... Very very well stated....

On that note I would like to share the following with you pursuant to Dinesh Disouza's most recent documentary "Hillary;s America."

CULTURE WARS

Top 10 highlights of 'Hillary's America'

Exclusive: Chuck Norris urges citizens go see 'superb and enlightening' film right now

Published: 2 hours ago
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12

Chuck Norris
Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza’s latest movie, "Hillary's America" is already the "Top-Grossing documentary of 2016, earning $5.2 million in just 12 days after its release. It has already trumped “A Beautiful Planet,” which grossed $4.1 million, and Michael Moore’s “Where to Invade Next,” which made $3.8 million.


More than 8 out of 10 people who have watched “Hillary’s America” have loved it.

My wife, Gena, and I went to see it last week. It is superb and enlightening, to say the least. So much so, that I want to give you my top 10 highlights of the film.

No. 10: The lesson Dinesh learned in jail from other inmates: The federal government is the biggest gang there is. The feds use the same tactics that most street gangs use – only on a much larger scale. Theft, extortion and suppression are their chief tactics. Case in point: "Dinesh's imprisonment" for making political donations through friends. Is it a “coincidence” that his sentence followed the release of his 2012 documentary, “Obama’s America”?

No. 9: The Democrat Party was the original pro-slavery and anti-minority party, and still is, when one understands its underlying motives and tactics. From Andrew Jackson’s suppression of slaves and slaughter of Indians to many modern Democrats’ “purchase” of minorities via government handouts to win their elections, the Democratic Party has maintained the same underhanded goals of Americans’ subjection and servitude.



No. 8: The Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery and pro-freedom movement. Not one Republican politician in the 19th century owned slaves. All of them fought to free slaves. Republicans also fought for minorities’ votes – including women’s suffrage – through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which the Democrats opposed. Despite Democrats hijacking the glory for the 1964 Civil Rights act, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats, and a conservative championed its passing. And it was actually the Republicans who led the first civil rights movement of 1865-1895, while Democrats again opposed it.

No. 7: African American-Isa Wells (the “original Rosa Parks”) was raised in a 19th-century home of active Republican parents. She led an anti-lynching crusade and was also a proponent of blacks’ Second Amendment right to bear arms as their primary means of protection, despite most Democrats vehement objections.

No. 6: President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, championed black segregation into the 20th century. In 1914, Wilson explained to Monroe Totter, a newspaper editor, real-estate businessman and an activist for African-American civil rights: “Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation. … If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me…”

No. 5: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and one who is praised by Hillary Clinton, advocated eugenics for birth control and the “Negro Project.” In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, she wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

No. 4: President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which is often hailed for its goals of reforming the American economy and helping the under-privileged, resulted in negative and fascist consequences for blacks, according to Dinesh and supported by the Cato Institute and others.
For example, as The Atlantic reported, “One of the most heinous of these policies was introduced by the creation of the Federal Housing Administration in 1934, and lasted until 1968. Otherwise celebrated for making homeownership accessible to white people by guaranteeing their loans, the FHA explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people. As TNC puts it, ‘Redlining destroyed the possibility of investment wherever black people lived.'”
No wonder Hitler and Mussolini lauded FDR!

No. 3: In response to the 1957 Civil Rights movement, Lyndon B. Johnson was concerned about the rise of black power when he said: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Seven years later, little changed, as then President Johnson sought to "buy" and control the black vote. via his Great Society, saying: “I’ll have them ni—rs voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Considering points 10 through three above, Dr. Carol Swain, a black law professor at Vanderbilt University and a scholar of Democratic Party history, who also appears in Dinesh’s documentary, explained at its premier to National Review: “It’s a sordid story. Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.” (Dr. Swain switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because of what she has learned about Democrats’ control of blacks.)

No. 2: I’ve pointed in earlier articles how President Obama and Hillary Clinton were fans and followers of the radical social engineer Saul Alinsky, who confessed to using mob tactics to organize communities and manipulate society. He became affiliated with Al Capone’s number-two man and “Enforcer,” Frank Nitti. In 1972, Alinksy said of him, “Nitti took me under his wing. I called him the professor and I became his student.” And so, Obama and Hillary likewise carried Nitti’s torch and legacy as they became disciples of Alinsky. And whom do we imagine they are trying to manipulate and control with Alinsky’s "Rules for Radicals?"

No. 1: The movie rightly compares Hillary to Eva Peron, the Argentine politician famously accused of money laundering in the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical “Evita.”
Most the world now knows that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been partners in crime when it comes to dirty laundering for the Clinton Foundation – something I also wrote about in length in an earlier column..

Whether we are talking international bribery with other countries, gargantuan honorariums for corporate speeches, cattle futures controversy, Whitewater, Travelgate, Pardongate, Frank Guistra and the Kazakhstan deal, Haiti relief, Renting Lincoln’s Bedroom or the transfer of uranium production to the Russians, the Clintons are pros at backdoor deals and you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours political purchases when it comes to their own personal and political gain.

The Clintons’ cash corruption plays both sides of the coin: international and national. Even a host of American companies with global interests gave millions to the Clintons while simultaneously soliciting the State Department.

“At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation,” according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.

In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton left the presidency with millions of dollars in debt. Since then, they’ve amassed over $130 million. Think about it!

In conclusion, my top 10 above are just the tip of the information iceberg in Dinesh’s “Hillary’s America,” so please go see the movie. You can see a trailer below. I wish a copy of the movie could be sent to every independent voter as well as every American who is waffling or wondering who to vote for.
Xander Meehan
No. this is not a pitch to support Trump either

But I do!