Hillary Clinton

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Thanks god I've been mostly out this days. The slow descent into madness is contagious, :P

Well, it is, but the evidence is pretty solid.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
https://youtu.be/3EsJLNGVJ7E (nsfw)

Podesta being an Occultist (without the ES bonuses) is pretty much confirmed.

https://np.reddit.com/r/askhillarysupporters/comments/5b7vz0/do_any_of_you_worry_that_hillary_might_be_tied_to/ (see first answer)

I Read through that. This is from the initial commentary of that first answer:
(which was posted on Nov 5th 0550 UTC)

"I follow current events pretty closely, especially this election cycle, and I promise you I have never heard the term spirit cooking at all"

On November 3rd, almost 31 hours before that post, the hashtag #SpiritCooking was at the top of Twitter's trending - with nearly 750,000 tweets and retweets. Within another 6-12 hours of that, it was beginning to show up on the highly politicized web sites.

So, I would venture to say that for someone who claims to be following current events closely, they don't appear to be keeping up closely at all.



As for the whole "performance art" schtick - if KellyAnne Conway hosted a Black Face dinner, and there was an associated video with Steven Baldwin, Gary Busey and Hulk Hogan actually wearing black face and tying nooses to a tree branch - but then saying "It was JUST performance art, we're not really racist" would that make it OK?

No matter which version of the occult, or performance art this is, these people aren't right in the head. The same artist Marina's Museum of Modern Art exhibit featuring a fusion of cannibalism and sex is another great example that this person should probably be on Risperidone and behavioral therapy.

Cutting a pentagram on your abdomen with a razor blade isn't art. She's like a bowling ball trying to be edgy.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The judges reacting to these voting CRISES seem to be responding only when the problem might harm Hillary's chances.

Not entirety. Jennik's #2 was very promptly taken to SCOTUS and overturned. No door-to-door ballot collecting; too bad for Americans United for Change.

I suppose Justices could be included in "Judges" - but I usually don't think of them as being the same thing. Judges seem to make a lot of decisions based off of their whim, whereas a Justice is usually forced to dig in and find a substantial reason for their decision. The US Supreme Court (not necessarily the state supreme courts, which often act like judges) seems more of a deliberative body than a reactionary body.

Although the final case didn't benefit the democrats, the Arizona law was again something that would harm Hillary's chances. Had it been a law that would hurt Trump such as "No political rallies with over 5,000 people are permitted within 90 days of an election." it wouldn't get the same attention or effort.

The problem is three fold, IMO.

1) Voting Fraud AND (not or) Voting process incompetence happens frequently. Not a majority of the time, but often enough that our elected leaders ought to take it seriously and craft some bipartisan measures to deal with and prevent it.

2)Voting registration is lax - enabling more fraud- and goes on for too long, enabling more fraud. Because of the lax methodology and late date - problem three arises.

3)Efforts to rectify the vote occur too late in an election cycle and thus actually can and do disenfranchise legal voters.

IMO - we need a secure verifiable voting system that doesn't allow non citizens or dead people to vote or vote more than once in the same election. The system needs to be free (it can be paid for with a 10% tax on all political contributions and/or spending in excess of ten dollars. We need a mandated holiday for everyone - no one can be forced to work more than half of the voting window, and make wages double for anyone working on that day.

With a secure and verifiable system (if they can verify emails with DKIM, why the heck can't votes be verified and checked later to make sure they are counted correctly?) the voting could be spread out over a two week period as well, alleviating the holiday and extra pay.

Extreme cases of voting fraud, vote tally manipulation etc, need to be a capital crime - where the method of death is chosen by public vote.

You know it's pretty funny, in a hypocritical way hearing the left whine about "poll watchers". When they don't appear to have a problem with it when the shoe is on the other foot:

Boy, I wonder what wikileaks has in store, its not even out and Shillary campaign already saying its fake. Must be well and truly damning.



But hey, like I've been told by Clinton News network and whatnot:
"The emails are fake but its illegal to have them, so take the information from us on what's in there and what you should think. Just trust us you dumb fucks!"

Crying fake doesn't work when the emails are DKIM verifiable (they are)

"

Xavderion wrote:

Crying fake doesn't work when the emails are DKIM verifiable (they are)

What DKIM means is: the sender's server acknowledges the sender sent that message as written. Basically, it means Podesta actually received the emails when it says he received them, and they actually said what they appear to say. That said, you could still claim that, say, Tony Podesta's account was hacked in 2015 and the hacker sent an incriminating and false email to John Podesta, therefore Tony is innocent. Or, the podesta.com email server was hacked in such a way as to verify different identities in 2016 than it did it 2015, causing it to verify things which didn't happen. But as things stand now, podesta.com says Tony sent the emails he sent, etc.

Which brings me to another point: these criminals aren't even that savvy. As soon as you get hacked, if you know you've sent dirt, announce a "configuration change" which wrecks the DKIM of all emails sent before that point. Yes, those emails will now show unverified, but with false negatives comes plausible deniability. I mean, fuck, if your aim is global supervillain, at least fucking do it right.

Of course, this isn't necessarily feasible if using a shared service like Gmail, Microsoft or Yahoo. Or state.gov. It's certainly advantageous to use a private email server if you want to maintain plausible deniability. Just make sure to keep some BleachBit handy if you get subpoenaed or something.

On that Black Panther photo:

Two men, on their own, decided to go to a polling location in their city and stand around looking menacing. They had reasons for doing this (dumb ones), but they were clearly in the wrong, and I have literally never seen a person say they weren't wrong to be there. If any defenders exist, they're certainly rare. The two men were at that location for roughly half an hour. The situation was dealt with and rational human beings moved on.

Cut to the right, who, not being rational humans, have been focusing an insane amount of attention on these two men ever since. Much of this attention is unabashedly racist, while some is simply moronic in nature. None of the attention is reasonable or justified.

This was an independent incident in one city that lasted for about half an hour. It's not remotely as big of a deal as you irrationally believe it is, and using it to justify the racist rhetoric from Trump about all the filthy "riggers" in inner cities is pathetic, dishonest, and delusional.

At best, you're arguing that two wrongs (one tiny and localized, the other a massive, organized uprising against democracy nation-wide) make a right. At worst your racism's showing and you're just propagating more fear of blacks in an effort to justify more persecution of blacks.

Securing the vote against fraud isn't anti-democracy. To be fair to your side, making voting convenient isn't anti-democracy either. Security and convenience do come into conflict, but if you don't imagine a compromise between those issues, if you just want one and not BOTH, then you're wrong.

Again, what they are "securing" against is practically nonexistent. The methods they are using to "secure" against that practically nonexistent threat are targeted against their enemies. Every time you say "it makes sense to secure against this threat" when they use a tactic that disenfranchises Democrats 2000% more than Republicans or blacks 25000% more than whites, you're falling for their bullshit.

Cutting early polling locations down to nothing in majority-black locations is not "securing" a damn thing. It's a blatant attack on democracy. The same goes for the other tactics I've mentioned in this thread and the many others I haven't. The GOP is, very blatantly, carrying out a systematic attack on democracy. They keep doing this year after year because they've learned that they can't win without doing it. They don't appeal to certain groups, so they disenfranchise them.

We have compromises already in place to secure against voter fraud. We don't need to "compromise" by letting the GOP disenfranchise millions of Democrats.

Per my earlier reply, the "polling places in Maricopa county, Arizona" issue is one where I agreed with you (4); it's pretty outrageous. But it's a Republican error in one county in one state, not a nationwide "systematic attack on democracy." And it's nothing Trump advocated.

Everything else you said earlier was either wrong (1,2) or insufficient information was available (3). So basically, you were putting your eggs in the (3) basket. Well, bad news: District Judge Richard Boulware says "it doesn’t seem to me at this point that there is enough evidence" to grant an injunction. We still don't have ask the info ourselves - and probably never will. Oh, and Boulware is an Obama appointee, just in case you were wondering.