Thursday, November 24, 2016

Party Over Country

The Trump camp, they were actively rooting them on. All they cared about was winning. As long as we win, we don't care. That's not America ~ Progressive Talker Stephanie Miller on the 11/23/2016 airing of her show, re Russia hacking the DNC.

With Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead now exceeding 2 million, the evidence continues to pile up that the election was stolen. As I pointed out previously, Donald Trump told us that the election was going to be rigged, and, as investigative journalist Greg Palast has reported, it was. The rigging taking the form of bumping people off the voter rolls via Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck. A voter disenfranchisement scheme that "purged 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP–controlled states".

Now there are reports that the vote may have been hacked. The following is an excerpt from the article "Experts calling for recount of presidential ballots in WI, MI & PA due to possible election machine hacking" from New York Magazine.

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in 3 swing states won by Donald Trump... The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they've found persuasive evidence that results in WI, MI, and PA may have been manipulated or hacked. ...

[On 11/17/2016] the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case... The academics presented findings showing that in WI, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30k votes; she lost WI by 27k. While it's important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing... that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama WH has accused the Russian government of hacking the DNC.

The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in WI to file for a recount is [11/25]; in PA, it's [11/28]; and MI is [11/30]. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines. Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the WH, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. (11/22/2016 by Gabriel Sherman).

Also, according to political journalist Bill Palmer the vote totals ending up the way they did are statistically suspicious.

The following is an excerpt from Palmer's DATE You're Not Just Imagining It, The Hillary Clinton Vs Donald Trump Vote Totals Do Look Rigged".

In order to believe that the official vote tallies are legitimate, you have to accept that all of the [following] legitimately happened: African-Americans in the South went from turning out in droves for HRC in the primary to not caring if she won the general election. DJT got 60-something percent of the same-day voting in FL. The polling averages were wrong for the first time in modern history. Trump beat his poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to fall below them. Clinton fell below her poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to beat them. In every state where Trump pulled off a shocking upset victory, he just happened to do it with 1% of the vote. And in an election that everyone cared particularly deeply about [turnout was down].

I can accept any one of the above things happening as an isolated fluke. I cannot accept all the above happening. And so for once in my evidence-driven career, I'm left to believe that the conspiracy theorists are right: the vote tallies are rigged.

I urge you to read the rest of the Palmer article. What I quote above is (a portion of) what Stephanie Miller read on the 11/23/2016 airing of her program (the conclusion). "I'm not a conspiratorial minded person at all" Miller said re the possible hacking of the vote. But the article from Palmer (a "top political journalist") has her convinced the election was rigged.

As am I. And, don't forget that Republicans don't believe in fair elections. They don't believe in making their case to the American people and letting the voters decide. The proof is their efforts to manipulate the vote by disenfranchising as many voters as possible (specifically those who might vote Democratic). As the (now deceased) religious Conservative Paul Weyrich ("notable as a figurehead of the New Right") said "I don't want people to vote... In fact, our leverage goes up as the voting populace goes down".

Further evidence Republicans place Party over Country is their theft of the SCOTUS appointment from Barack Obama. Obama, as the serving president at the time the vacancy occurred (when Justice Scalia died), had the right to select a replacement of his choice. Instead Congressional Republicans stonewalled in the hope that Trump would be elected.

This, even though their internal polling said Trump would likely lose. Prior to election day John McCain announced "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up". He was talking about obstructing an HRC SCOTUS nomination for 4 years! A clear example of how Republicans put Party before Country.

BTW, as for convincing the Electors to vote for HRC instead of Trump, I read on another blog this would involve "throwing out the rules of the Constitution". An absurd assertion, given the fact that (as per FairVote) "Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge".

Article 2 does not contain within it a mandate that an Elector MUST vote for the candidate they have pledged they will support. In some states the elector is (by law) required to vote for their pledged candidate, but "the constitutionality of such mandates is uncertain" (as per Wikipedia). In other words, it would be fully Constitutional for an Elector to change his or her vote (although some states fine faithless electors).

As President Obama said, Donald Trump is "uniquely unqualified" to be POTUS. And I, as Obama does, am convinced "the Republic is at risk" if Trump becomes president.

Which is why I strongly believe that every possible legal avenue that exists to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency should be attempted. I pray that Hillary Clinton listens to those who are telling her the election wasn't "free and fair" and that she should call for an audit of the votes in WI, MI & PA. Or that (enough) Electors change their votes so that Trump is denied the presidency.

Denying Trump the presidency is a longshot, but we won't know if it work or not if it isn't tried. I am SICK of stolen elections, and you know Republicans will continue to cheat in future elections. Should the response of the Democrats continue to be only to pump up turnout (in order to overcome the cheating)? Why not attack on ALL fronts? The fear (I'm positive) is that HRC will be painted as a "sore loser" if she contests the results. Which is why she probably won't. And Barack Obama (per the NY Magazine excerpt) doesn't want her to.

So the Dems are just going to roll over and accept the results, even though they almost certainly aren't kosher. But the stakes are just too high. A President Trump will seek to destroy Obama's legacy and roll back rights gained under our first African American president. I say that, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, we MUST fight to prevent Trump from becoming our 45th president. Because, if Trump becomes president, we will SERIOUSLY be fucked (including the rubes who voted for him).

Also, you KNOW Trump and his supporters would be raising a stink if the election had gone the other way. So why the hell should Hillary supporters stay quiet and accept the results? Because they're afraid of being labeled "sore losers"?! I will never accept that Trump was legitimately elected (SWTD #358). Even if he occupies the White House as the Orange-Buffoon-In-Chief (which he very likely will), that doesn't mean I have to accept it or shut up about the election being rigged.

Petitions You Can Sign
->Call for an audit and recount of the vote. Target: Hillary Clinton (78,160 signatures the last time I checked).
->Demand an Audit of the 2016 Presidential Election. by Verified Voting (66,038 signatures).
->Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19. petition. (4,621,738 supporters with a goal of 6,000,000).

See Also
->The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate. [Excerpt] ...the director of the NSA, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect". ... Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in AZ and IL. ...the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump's campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to co opt and cultivate Trump).
->Still time for an election audit by Ron Rivest and Philip Stark. USA Today 11/18/2016. [Excerpt] ...if we just want to check whether Donald Trump won the election, an audit might examine even fewer ballots, because it could proceed in stages. First it would check the results in the states Trump won. If auditing confirms those results, there's no need to audit in the states Clinton carried: Trump really won. That means auditing about 700,000 ballots in the 29 states Trump won, about 0.5% of the ballots cast in this election.

SWTD #361

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Electoral College Instruction From A Hard Working American

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy ~ Donald J. Trump via Twitter, 11/6/2012.

It has been quite a long time, but I have returned. It is I, the Radical Right-Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy, a writer of guest commentaries for this blog. Although the last time I was published here was way back in 2011. My commentary then concerned how ObamaCare would be repealed. Because the Dems wrote it but didn't read it. So they had no idea how bad it was.

Now (finally) President Trump will repeal ObummerCare and replace it with something terrific. A free-market based solution that will provide healthcare for everyone at a fraction of the cost. Anyway, that isn't what I'm going to be writing about today. Today the subject is the Electoral College. An institution the crybaby losers who supported the losing candidate want to do away with.

According to J. Craig Scherf of Duluth MN (a Historical researcher), "the Founders intended to place a brake on popular opinion alone by the choice of electors who might deliberate on the choice of a chief executive".

Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was in France when the Constitution was written) said "I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election... as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit".

James Wilson, one of the authors of the Constitution, asked "Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?". James Madison, who was the primary author, must have overruled him. Thank God!

Because, as I recently discovered, winning the popular vote but losing the election is a thing only Democrats do. In recent history the fact that we don't elect our president via the popular vote has saved us from an Al Gore and (most recently) a Hillary Clinton presidency.

President Crooked Hillary Clinton? Obviously nobody would have wanted that. Except for a majority of the American electorate. But, as the researcher Scherf points out, the Electoral College is "merely one example of the numerous checks and balances throughout the Constitution that imprint it everywhere as a compact between states and as a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy based on population alone".

Hear, hear Mr. Scherf, I say. Especially since the Electoral College made George W. Bush and now Donald Trump president. Two of our greatest presidents. Despite Bush's presidency ending with a sharp economic downturn. And him getting us involved in unending wars in the Middle East by lying about Saddam having WMDs. Other than that, he was pretty awesome, I think.

As for President-elect Trump, all the signs point to him being a great president. Something the hate-filled Liberals will never admit. No matter that President Trump will likely bring back prosperity for all rich people. He said his mandate was to make America great again, and I believe he will.

If not? Well, he was elected by the Electoral College, so clearly the Founders would have said the popular opinion being that Crooked Hillary should be our next president is an opinion that the brakes needed to be put on. Rednecks and hicks want Trump. As well as some racists and bigots. And, obviously we don't want a break put on their opinions.

Which is that Trump (a man born incredibly wealthy - and also a egomaniac who decided to run for president to get revenge on Barack Obama for roasting him at the correspondent's dinner) is a man of the people who selflessly decided his country needed him. To save us from a charismatic tyrant who could manipulate the will of the people (something the Founders warned us about).

I'm talking about Crooked Hillary and NOT the rubes my man Donald manipulated by lying about building a wall Mexico would pay for and promising to take away their health care subsidies they don't want because they aren't freeloaders.

Soon Donald's fellow millionaires and billionaires will have the burden of over-taxation and overregulation lifted from their shoulders and they will be able to create 3 jobs for every man, woman and child who wants one (at substantially reduced wages once the minimum wage is eliminated).

And the country will rejoice that Donald J Trump is the president! Instead of president Hillary ruining the country and gay marrying Huma Abedin. And lezing it up in the White House (I've heard). Just to rub it in the face of America's hard working rubes. Christians who hate the sin of homsexuality because the Bible says it's wrong to chose to be gay.

And you KNOW madame President would have passed the TPP with the help of Congressional Republicans. Which is why I'm strongly in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Because no Republican has ever won the popular vote but lost the election. If it were the other way around, then yeah, I'd absolutely be for getting rid of it.

SWTD #360

Friday, November 11, 2016

A 2012 Tweet From DJT I Agree With (The Orange Buffoon Who "Won" The WH By Way Of The Electoral College)


Perhaps, if he still feels the same way, he should urge his electors to vote for the popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton? (60,071,650 or 47% for DJT versus 60,467,245 or 48% for HRC).

I found this image (of the tweet) attached to a 10/10/2016 article from "The Wrap". Author Tim Molloy says Donald should work to get rid of the electoral college, "unless he's a giant hypocrite or something".

BTW, Donald thought it was going to be a "disaster" because (for awhile) it looked like Mittens might win the popular vote but lose the election. Which did not end up happening (or so The Wrap reports. Me, I don't recall that).

I read on a Conservative blog (WYD) that they're standing behind the electoral college because we're a Republic, not a Democracy Trump would have lost otherwise (although I just looked for the comment and could not find it. I am sure I read it, however).

However (as per the Wrap article, quoting the NYT), the electoral college is a compromise put in place by the Founders because "Southern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, most prominently James Madison of Virginia, were concerned that their constituents would be outnumbered by Northerners".

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years.

Given that it's been quite a while since slavery was abolished, maybe it's time we got rid of this vestige of slavery?

#abolishelectoralcollege #notmypresident #republicanssuck.

SWTD #359

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Donald Trump Will Be An Illegitimate President

I truly believe, without the Republican Voter suppression efforts, that she would have won, and perhaps did ~ Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on his eponymous radio program, 11/10/2016.

Apparently the "American People" decided that sending an orange buffoon to the White House would be a good idea. Except that Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote. More people will end up voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. The 2nd time in recent history that this has happened.

Prior to Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000, Democrat Grover Cleveland received the most votes but lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison (in 1888). A popular-vote-winner not winning the White House has happened 4 times in total. And they were ALL Democrats! Now Hillary Clinton will be the 5th Democrat to win a majority of the votes but not serve as president.

george w. bush was, in my opinion, an illegitimate president. Because his brother, as the governor of FL, along with his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, cheated. Cheated by bumping legitimate African American voters off the rolls. This was accomplished by way of ChoicePoint, a company that produced a list of "felons" to remove from the rolls. This they did by matching names of FL voters with the names of felons in other states.

If the name matched (even if the name was a common one and even if the middle initials differed), the "felon" was "scrubbed". They weren't allowed to vote because they had the same name as someone in another state who had been convicted of a felony, in other words (Greg Plast reported on this in his 2002 article "The Great Florida Ex-Con Game").

This time around the voter suppression technique was carried out by Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas. And, instead of "ChoicePoint", this time the voter disenfranchisement was carried out via "Crosscheck". Crosscheck is a computer program that compares lists of voters in multiple states. If a "duplicate" is found the assumption is made that someone is trying to vote twice (voter fraud), and both names are struck from the rolls.

No matter that MANY people across the United States have the same name. Even the same middle initial. But just the same first and last is good enough to get you removed from the voter list (Greg Palast reported on this election thievery method with his pre-election article "The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters").

But is anyone talking about the tens of thousands of voters losing their vote because their name is similar to a voter in another state? Hell, no! Instead the pundits are talking about how the pollsters got it "wrong". Totally ignoring GOP vote theft. As I predicted (SWTD #355).

Donald Trump TOLD us the election would be rigged! He was right. The election was rigged. In his favor. But he said it was rigged against him, outraging the establishment Left. Donald Trump MUST accept the election results. To NOT do so would be unthinkable.

And so, When Hillary Clinton "lost", she quickly conceded. This was Trump's plan, I believe. Talk up phony "voter fraud" and imply he might not accept the election results. Get everyone riled up about how outrageous it would be if he contested losing, then when he "won", Hillary would be obligated to bow out fast.

Me, I'm not sure that, even WITH the cheating, Donald Trump would have won. A couple of things put him over the top, I think. The first would be what Van Jones termed "white-lash", which would be the Right's resentment that a Black man was elected to the White House. Twice. They stewed over that for 8 years. Trump harnessed their resentment.

But, in a democracy, that's "fair". A candidate can appeal to the voter's biases for their vote. Muslims are terrorists. Mexicans are rapists. Women need to be punished for exercising their right to chose murdering babies. Blacks are violent criminals and the police need to crack some heads shoot to kill. "Transgendered" men are sex predators who want to rape your daughters and wives in public restrooms. Gay people flaunt their immorality (by getting "gay married") and lure straight kids into the "homosexual lifestyle". Or just gross people out.

Second, Donald Trump ran to the Left of Hillary on trade. He came out against the job-killing TPP early on (as did Bernie Sanders). HRC, reading the tea leaves, decided she needed to be anti-TPP as well. But many didn't believe her flip-flop was genuine. Or was at least suspicious (myself included). This probably fed into the "untrustworthy" meme. Although Trump's promises of bringing back all our manufacturing jobs is very unlikely (IMO). Maybe we can bring some of them back.

But stemming the tide by rejecting the TPP is a no-brainer. Trump got that. None of that is "cheating". Appealing to the bigotry of the right isn't cheating either. Or appealing to their sexism. A woman can't be president. Trump went HARD for the deplorable vote. That's what the Right does. Although usually on the down-low. Trump is the first candidate in recent memory to openly and brazenly appeal to the alt-Right.

Anyway (except for running to the Left on trade), all of that is mostly par for the course for a Republican presidential candidate (except Trump did it MORE). As is the voter disenfranchisement (ChoicePoint, CrossCheck). Republicans cheat. Election fraud, not voter fraud (which mostly does not exist). But I'm convinced Hillary Clinton STILL would have won. Despite these hurdles. And despite being an imperfect candidate. Which is why something extra was needed.

Enter FBI director James Comey. Initially he said "no way" in regards to indicting Secretary Clinton for having a private server. Because, you know, everyone does it. The guy who had her job under gwb had a private email address (Colin Powell). Heck, the bush administration "lost" 22 million emails.

Yet nobody raised a stink over what the bush administration did. Even though many suspected they were covering up crimes. The fact that they cooked up a strategy to fool the American people into getting behind an illegal war in Iraq. And the fact that Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys for not prosecuting bogus "voter fraud" cases.

But Hillary sent "classified" material via email! Oh my God! A mistake, as opposed to covering up actual crimes. "Lock her up", the rubes chanted. Chris Christie held a mock trial during the RNC convention and "convicted" Hillary. Obviously that bullshit damaged her campaign.

But then, just when everyone thought it was over... surprise! Comey found more emails (on a laptop shared by Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin) and announced more "investigating" was necessary. On 10/26/2016 Rudy Giuliani gleefully revealed he knew Comey would reveal an October surprise shortly. "You'll see", the scumbag coyly replied when pressed for details by CNN's Don Lemon.

Clear election meddling, IMO. Yet Chris Matthews and the msnbc stooges blather on and on about how they all had it so wrong. Legitimizing his win. I don't accept that the pollsters had it ALL wrong. Perhaps they overestimated the ease with which Hillary Clinton would cruise into the White House.

But, as opposed to "getting it so wrong", I think this was more a case of the usual Republican election thievery, coupled with meddling by Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI. That is was what cost Hillary Clinton the election. And gave the presidency to an orange racist misogynist buffoon that, when he began his campaign, everyone laughed at. I'm not laughing now. I'm terrified. The Trump recession could cost me big league.

In any case, I predict that when the investigative reporters (people like Greg Palast) dig into this, they will find that my take on what happened is correct. More or less they will find that, while Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, the other side took advantage of Hillary's "flaws" (her email scandal), and took her down via illegal election meddling.

Even though Comey said (shortly after announcing the discovery of the new emails, followed by the Right speculating about an indictment and prison time... this time, for SURE) that all the emails were duplicates and that his original decision to not prosecute stood, the DAMAGE had already been done.

According to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, "while Clinton's chances were slightly declining already after she came off her post-debate peak, the rate of decline began to accelerate a couple of days after Comey [as per] post-Comey polls".

Add it all up - Trump running to the Left of Clinton on trade, the fact that HRC was a flawed candidate, the usual Republican election disenfranchisement and voter intimidation, and (lastly) the election meddling (by Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI) and Hillary Clinton loses an election she SHOULD have won.

And, yeah, it's the illegal meddling of Comey that I think broke the camel's back. It was too much for some voters. As Glenn Beck predicted (DSB #60). I am listening to MSNBC as I type this. Earlier something caught my ear and I stopped and typed it into a text document. "The late deciders moved to Trump by 5 points". Someone (I don't recall who) said.

"Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States", sez Matthews. Morning Joke and sidekick Mika (one of the pundits who gave Trump so much free airtime) did the same (while a banner scrolled across the bottom of the screen that said "The American way: the peaceful transition of power"). It's one the "hallmarks of our Democracy" according to Barack Obama (who will see his legacy destroyed in the coming years).

It sickens me that the Left is working so HARD to legitimize this doofus. I reject this legitimization. Donald Trump was the one telling us the election would be stolen from him and that he wasn't going to accept the results! Now the institutional Left is bowing to him? Not me! I say he will be an illegitimate president. Not because I'm a "sore loser" or a "cry baby" (as a troll said in an unpublished comment). But because they cheated! And more than usual.

The Republican voter disenfranchisement crap seemingly being the norm now. But what Comey did? That was surely not normal. Also quite illegal, I think. I mean, that is what the Hatch Act says. But clearly nobody cares. Whatever it takes to win is OK now. At least if the candidate in question is a Republican.

Video: Enjoy this video from 2/9/2013. Bill Maher makes fun of the birther Donald. Trump was a JOKE as a private citizen and will be a JOKE as president. He will not fulfill his campaign promises, except to repeal the ACA. Something that will HURT many of his idiot supporters. I doubt he'll blow up NAFTA. The TPP will likely be passed by the lame duck Congress. What will Trump do then? Republicans have traditionally supported job-killing trade deals. Because they enrich the oligarchs they serve. Trump will be a one term president (5:37).

Bill Maher: "I don't know what's in this man's head. It's like they took Lenny from Of Mice and Men and made him a billionaire". (re Trump's lawsuit against the comedian for saying his father was an orangutan. Comment from the 2/12/2013 airing of Conan O'Brien's TBS talkshow).

#notmypresident, TrumpIllegitimate.

SWTD #358

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Analyzing The Posts "Liberal Hate" By Luke Spencer & "Liberal Haters" By TOM The Omelet Man

If trolls are spreading rumors, tweeting wrong information or posting inaccuracies, nip it in the bud. The best way to disprove tales told by trolls is with facts ~ quote from the 2/3/2015 article How to Deal With Social Media Trolls by Rachel Wisuri.

The purpose of the analyzation is to prove that Luke (AKA Luke Spencer) and TOM are the same blog troll. By the way, TOM is an acronym that stands for "The Omelet Man". So called because his brain was scrambled after undergoing surgery for his "brain cancer" (TOM: "having brain cancer, I question my mental abilities"). Which, while blogging on Stay A While TOM says he had (both brain cancer and brain surgery).

Now, I would NEVER make fun of someone who was genuinely seriously ill (as Octopus says nobody should). But I am convinced that TOM lied. He never had brain cancer, he was never in hospice, he never had surgery, and he did not die as TOM claims.

Note that there are two TOMs. TOM-3136 (profile Not Available) and TOM 5704 (Gort avatar pic). It was TOM-3136 that told me TOM-5704 died.

TOM-3136: Hey stupid fag boy, did you figure out who I am yet idiot? I'll give you a clue. The TOM you keep talking about is dead, and I never was him, but thanks for the laughs. Now back to getting butt fucked by your fag boy buddy RN. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (2/05/2016 AT 12:13pm).

I need to point out, however, that both of these TOMs commented on Stay A While, and both indicated that Stay A While was their blog - nobody ever noticed that there were two different TOM accounts commenting on Stay A While, nor did either TOM ever say they weren't the other TOM.

Comments from the blog "Stay A While"...

Tom-5704: Hi Shaw, Thanks for stopping by. I put you on my link list. I like to have different things for different people, not as many political posts as you have, but I will write about politics. I am liberal. This is the 9th day since I started this blog, and I change it everyday. Stop by again. I will stop by your blog again. Thanks. (August 5, 2009 at 12:58 pm).

TOM-3136: Thanks for reading my blog! [Quoted sentence is the last one at the end of a long comment] (4/17/2011 AT 8:01 pm).

These two comments show that both TOMs claim that Stay A While is their blog (note that Tom-5704 initially spelled his name with only the first letter capped, but later switched to all caps, same as TOM-3136). Also note that, while 2 TOMs claim the blog is theirs, the readers of Stay A While never say anything about it, nor does either TOM (all commenters THOUGHT they were dealing with one TOM).

I point this out because TOM-3136, when I linked to the comment where he said Stay A While was his blog, admitted it (although he later went back to his initial lie).

Comments from this blog...

TOM-3136: Did you ever here of co-author dip shit? No, you are to stupid. Thanks for the laughs and thanks for reading my comments... (2/13/2016 AT 10:34am).

TOM-3136: ...I never had a blog. I never wrote "Stay A While" but thanks again for proving what a lying faggot you are. (5/31/2016 7:32pm).

So, TOM-3136 was either a "co-author" and TOM-5704 did die, or the same person created, and was the individual behind both "TOM" accounts. Given the fact that TOM-3136 is a liar (lied about posting/commenting on Stay A While, after ADMITTING he did), I'm leaning (strongly) toward both TOMs being the same person and there never being a co-author that died.

Remember that neither TOM ever mentioned a "co-author" and (in their comments) presented themselves as the one and only TOM of Stay A While. That said, in addition to my belief that TOM-5704 and TOM-3136 are the same person, I also contend that the person behind both TOM accounts created another account. An account he attached the name "Luke" to (Blogger ID #11597062711930899788).

Although the "Luke" account originally had the name "Steve" associated with it. A FACT that is easily proven by looking at the ID numbers. They are the same, meaning the account is the same, and the name was just changed. Steve is an individual who trolled my blog for many years (as did TOM. See DSD #33 for more info/definitive proof).

Luke (formerly Steve) has a blog titled Words And Music (titled "Speak Your Mind" when he initially set it up) where he writes about (in addition to other things) how everyone is plagerizing his posts (SWTD #346). Also about how he is a Liberal... who is being attacked by other Liberals.

A subject he wrote about recently in a 10/23/2016 post titled "Liberal Hate". This was a post that I IMMEDIATELY recognized as being VERY similar to posts and comments made by TOM on Stay A While. Specifically, TOM's post from 11/12/2011 titled "Liberal Haters".

I'd like to note at this point that Luke has copied over posts from Stay A While. I sent Rational Nation an email about this, and his response was to write that "the probability that they are one in the same is very likely 95% or greater" (Luke and TOM).

In total I found 3 commentaries that were originally published on Stay A While (SAW) that made their way over to Words And Music (WAM).

The DATES are links. The 1st date is when Luke re-published the commentary on WAM. The 2nd date is when it was originally published on SAW by TOM.

#1 Americans are Wrong Sometimes (7/2/2016 & 8/19/2010).

#2 If We Can Keep It (7/4/2016 & 7/8/2010).

#3 Any Good Republican Ideas Out There? (8/19/2016 & 3/1/2010).

But maybe Luke just plagiarized TOM of SAW? Or, maybe Luke asked TOM-3136 if he could republish his posts and TOM said OK? Luke did tell me that he'd been conversing with TOM... about the "assholes who attack blogs" (See DSD #36, comment #8). Although my interpretation of this remark is that TOM was talking with TOM about TOM. Or, Luke was talking with Luke about Luke.

By which I mean Luke and TOM are the same person. More telling than posts being duplicated on both Luke and TOM's blogs, is the similarities between the 10/23/2016 post "Liberal Hate" and the 12/12/2011 post "Liberal Haters". Because this shows, IMO, that Luke and TOM think alike (because they are the same person). These are posts written almost 5 years apart in which the respective authors use a lot of the same language and phrases (because they are the same person).

What follows are similarities I noticed between the two posts (aside from the nearly identical titles). Note that all phrases are direct quotes from these two posts, which you can confirm by comparing the two commentaries. Use the SEARCH function of your browser and you will see that the selected phrases appear in BOTH commentaries.

I've also included a few similarities between other TOM (SAW) and Luke (WAM) posts (links given when I'm not comparing "Liberal Hate" 10/23/2016 to "Liberal Haters" 12/12/2011).

#1 WOW! Wow!

Luke: They claim their candidate Hillary is without any faults and use Trump as their comparison. WOW!

TOM: I mean this idiot writes a supposed liberal political blog, but bans people for using Obamamaniac? Wow!

#2 Liberals Love To Hate

Luke: The liberals are so happy in their hate.

TOM: They revel in their hate.

#3 Liberals Are Haters

Luke: And what will the liberal haters say? Nothing.

Luke: ...the dishonest, hate filled tactics of these morally bankrupt liberals...

TOM: These lefty nut jobs are nuttier than righty nut jobs by far, and filled with much more hate.

TOM: They can't see through their cloud of hate.

#4 Attacked By Liberals Via "Hate Mail"

Luke: The scumbag Dervish Sanders who has attacked my blog with 600 vile emails... (Interest in the Election? 10/17/2016).

Luke: I've already received my daily vulgar hate mail and death threats from Dervish Sanders and his hate buddies this morning. (Comey. 10/31/2016).

TOM: I have posted many times about their attacks on me, and have posted their hate mail. They are having to much fun with their negativity and hate. They have kept their attacks on me going for months.

[Both Luke and TOM are clearly confused about comments they have/are receiving because they entered their email address in the box under the Blogger dashboard. Blogger is sending/sent them emails. For example, Luke says I've emailed him, but I do not have his email address. So what he claims is impossible].

#5 Attacked With Hate

Luke: Dervish has the exact same character as Trump and how Trump attacks with lies and hate. (Interest in the Election? 10/17/2016).

TOM: Funny, they attack my blog with hate, but claim I'm the hater.

#6 Attacked for Criticizing Clinton/Obama

Luke: I have received over 600 vile emails and multiple death threats from liberal bloggers like Dervish Sanders and many more, because I dare to voice negative comments about Clinton.

TOM: I have been banned from Leslie's blog and Sue's blog, for writing on my blog, that Obama should get off his fat ass. (HATE. 9/12/2011).

#7 Liberals Write Hate About Republicans Every Day

Luke: Shaw writes her dripping hate about Trump, everyday. She lives to write hate about one person, everyday. (Spreading The Word. 9/29/2016).

TOM: TomCat... His blog, like Sue's, is nothing but hate filled writings about Republicans.

TOM: Try writing about how Obama could be better instead of writing hate everyday. ... Read Sue's blog. It is nothing but hate, hate, hate everyday, every post. She sends the hate mail I've been getting for months, yet I'm the hater she claims. ... They write nothing but hate, negativity, swear words, and their own lies everyday.

#8 Liberals Call Republicans Hitler

Luke: They call Trump Hitler, just as they called Bush Hitler.

Luke: So when president Clinton lies and Americans die, I will be there to say I told you so, but I won't call her a Hitler, or other ridiculous superlatives.

TOM: The rest of the Republicans are not brown shirts. or Hitler like politicians.

#9 Called A Traitor For Not Supporting Iraq Invasion

Luke: I was called a traitor for not supporting the Iraq invasion. I complained about liberals when they called Bush II, Hitler. (Did You Vote Today?. 11/8/2016).

TOM WordPress Acct: It reminds me of the old days when I was called a traitor for being against the invasion of Iraq and some of those were liberals also, or being banned from a liberal blog for saying they were nuts for comparing Bush to Hitler. (HATE ATTACK HATE ATTACK, 12/20/2011).

There may be more similarities, but I thought 9 was enough to make my point. Which is that this isn't just a case of 2 different people having the same idea, as Luke claimed when I pointed out that "Liberal Hate" was VERY similar to "Liberal Haters".

As I have just shown, Luke and TOM not only had the "same idea", they use many of the same words and phrases. According to the definition, the word "phraseology" is defined as "the way that a particular person or group uses words".

This is the method I have used to deduce that TOM and Steve are the same person. And, as I have already proven, Steve is Luke. Because the ID #s for both is 11597062711930899788. See DSD #35 for my comparrison of comments from each where they make the same compound word error, which would be to type "asshole" as "ass hole" (and also point out that Steve and Luke's ID #s are the same).

It appears as though TOM and Luke make many compound word errors. For example, both Luke and TOM write "everyday" when the correct form is "every day" (#7). TOM writes "brown shirts" as two words, when it should be one (#8). In his post Liberal Hate, Luke writes "group think" when groupthink is also one word. In Interest In The Election? Luke types whatsoever as "what so ever".

By the way, Luke himself (commenting as Steve) said that using phraseology to identify bloggers using other IDs (or posting anonymously) was easy (although he was talking about identifying Rational Nation posting as The Sword of Truth, which is something that happened back when I allowed anonymous commenting on this blog).

Steve: Misspellings and grammar errors are RN's MO, and you are right, those kind of personal habits are hard to hide. Ask Shaw, she might know. This is all part of RN's tactics, also the unmistakeable MO of RN. (8/15/2013 AT 1:05pm).

He says "ask Shaw", because "The Sword Of Truth" commented for awhile on her blog[1]. Anyway, note that Luke (posting as Steve) says these "kind of personal habits are hard to hide" and that they are "unmistakable". An observation I agree with. The "unmistakable personal habits" being misspellings and phraseology. Although, in this case, these "personal habits" point VERY strongly to Luke being TOM.

Either TOM-5707 returned from the dead, or TOM-3136 (co-author of Stay A While). If we are to believe that 2 TOMs co-blogged, which I do not. They (Luke, TOM-5704 and TOM-3136) are the the SAME idiot/blog troll. Identified by the "personal habits" (same language, misspelling, grammar errors, phraseology) that are HARD TO HIDE and UNMISTAKABLE. Impossible to hide, I'd say (at least for TOM/Steve/Luke). Given the similarities between Luke's "Liberal Hate" and TOM's "Liberal Haters".

In closing, I'm going to ask you (the reader), that, if you chose to comment, PLEASE let me know if you agree. Have I proven that Luke and both TOMs are the same person? Also, does my proof convince you of this 100%... or close to it? IMO it should. I know I'm 100% convinced that these 3 IDs are controlled by the same asshole. Or that ONE of the TOMs (TOM-3136) is now posting as "Luke", at least (100% on that, and 99.9% sure that both TOMs and Luke are the same person).

Image: "From the first day the first troll king pooped out his first troll-sac full of butt-eggs... the conventional wisdom has been to ignore them. Ignore them and they'll go away. ... Except... has that worked? That's been the policy since day one, and has trolling gotten better or worse? I'd wager that the people who are drawn to trolling, for the most part, are people who are used to being ignored. Ignoring them is playing to one of their strengths". (Don't Ignore The Trolls. Feed Them Until They Explode by Lindy West. 7/31/2013).


[1] Regarding the "Sword of Truth", an anonymous commenter on Progressive Eruptions said "The Sword of Truth is RN, that was exposed on another blog last week. I don't know why you put up with that scum bag". Note the compound word error (he writes "scumbag" as two words). Also, the Anon later (in the same thread) writes "You know JMJ is RN's alter ego" (This is an accusation TOM/Steve/Luke has made before).

For even more proof that Luke & TOM are the same person see here (link to a page on this blog where I have catalogued all the evidence I have accumulated thus far that TOM and Luke are the same blog troll.

Postscript: Wish I had seen that Shaw Kenawe post. I might not have written so detailed a commentary. Now it looks like all the time put in really wasn't necessary. Everyone already is on to Luke. Or onto the fact that he used to troll as Steve, at least. With the proof I've revealed here I think everyone can CONFIDENTLY conclude that Luke is also TOM. BTW, Luke recently authored a commentary in which he wrote "his delusions are deep and famous [and] he is known as a liar"... but he WASN'T talking about himself! Despite this being the PERFECT description of Luke the Puke.

SWTD #357