On My Birthday Being The Day On Which Death Is One Full Year Closer

Everybody is going to be dead one day, just give them time ~ Neil Gaiman (dob 11/10/1960) an English author of short fiction, novels, comic books, graphic novels, audio theatre, and films.

So this past Sunday (Christmas) was the day on which I was born. On Facebook a sister-in-law wished me a "happy birthday". In response I wrote "I now refer to it as the day I am one full closer to death". This is a view I adopted a few years ago. The SIL replied that she thought this is a "dismal outlook".

Yes, anyone who knows me knows that is my general disposition. I am not an optimistic person. On the other hand, declaring that my outlook is dismal; that struck me as judgmental, and that the judgment was not good. That I SHOULDN'T have that outlook. But, while my reason is that I am a pessimist, there are people who have this view regarding death who aren't.

This I know because just that day I had listened to someone express such a thought. "I think it gives me this more palpable sensation with being alive" Julia Sweeney said, explaining why she LIKES to contemplate death.

Julia Sweeney is an atheist. Atheism makes no sense to me, and (as an atheist) Julia Sweeney's view on death makes no sense to me. If she had expressed similar thoughts AS A CATHOLIC, then I'd say that makes some sense to me. And I'd say I agree with some of what she said. Some of what she said in a conversation with Marc Maron on 11/24/2014.

I just fininshed listening to the audiobook version of Julia Sweeney's It it's not one thing, it's your mother and I decided to seek out other audios of hers. She has a few books, but most of her output takes the form of what's called "autobiographical monologues". I'd heard God Said Ha! years ago. There is another titled Letting Go of God and I thought, well, I don't want to PAY to hear someone tell religion is ridiculous and there is no God, but I'll listen. Maybe if I can buy the 2-CD set cheap. Really cheap. I obtained "God said Ha!" cheap by buying it along with some other items on eBay (and therefore the shipping cost per item was lesser, whereas if you buy a CD on Amazon, the shipping itself is 3.99 per item. More than I was willing to pay in total).

So, after looking around, I found it was not available cheaply enough. But I did find it on YouTube. So I listened. And yes, she points out the ridiculousness of Christianity (much of which I was already aware of). But do I want to be an atheist? No, I do not. I couldn't live as an atheist. The ridiculousness in the Bible exists because it was written by men. I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy.

In fact, listening to "Letting go of God", while it did not convince me to become an atheist, it did convince me (even moreso) that my view that the Bible is NOT inerrant is correct. But that isn't a reason for me to leave the Christian faith. Julia Sweeney would have good reason to leave the Catholic faith, one of the more silly versions of Christianity, IMO. Because Catholics believe there exists an infallible representative of God here on earth.

And that leaders of the Catholic church can rewrite laws governing how Catholics live their lives. And frequently these laws don't have anything to do with what is in the Bible. For example, some years ago I heard that they got together and decided that Limbo no longer exists. Previously Catholics were taught that if a baby dies before being baptized that the baby's soul goes to Limbo. Now? I guess it just never existed. Although it is a totally made up concept to begin with.

My point is that Catholic nonsense gave Sweeney good reason to leave the Catholic faith. That would have been a very sensible thing to do, IMO. But that didn't mean she needed to abandon her faith all together. IMO. Although she does discuss this possibility in her "Letting go of God" monologue (switching religions). But ultimately decides there is no God.

Although some of her views on the matter of the afterlife remain Catholic in nature it seems. Or conforming to a religious view of the afterlife, which is why I found her thoughts on the matter a little perplexing. Thoughts expressed to Marc Maron on 11/24/2014 in a discussion for his WTF podcast.

This was following the release of her book, "If It's Not One Thing..." in 2013, and it's Julia Sweeney's life (in general) that they talk about. Death is a topic that comes up right away, and it's the first 4 minutes (roughly) that I decided to transcribe as follows...

Julia: I just bought a cemetary plot for myself in Spokane.

Marc: That's an uplifting way to start the show. Is it a nice plot?

Julia: It is. It's with our family. It's other people in the family. Actually, just this morning I paid the final check on it.

Marc: So, it's all ready to go.

Julia: Now I feel like, I don't have to visit Spokane that much anymore. I'm going to spend a long time there.

Marc: That's my post retirement plan.

Julia: Exactly.

Marc: Oh, my God. Do I need to get one of those? When do you get one of those?

Julia: I don't know because my husband and I kept going back and forth about it. Because he doesn't care at all about that. And wouldn't even discuss it. And the only reason I did is because I had a couple siblings die and other family members - and they're in this area we have visited in Spokane. You know, the cemetery. We were like a Mexican family. We'd go have a picnic at the cemetery with our [dead] relatives.

Marc: You did?

Julia: Oh, yeah.

Marc: But you're a Catholic Family?

Julia: Irish Catholic. We just had to stop by all the time. If we're on the North side, it like... We'll pop in and say hello to Henrietta...

Marc: Your grandparents?

Julia: Yeah. And so, it suddenly occurred to me that's meaningful. Not everyone has that. That's meaningful. And, I had happened to talk to this woman who sells cemetery plots there, and she goes... you know, the spot right next to your two brothers is available. And I was like... I'm in! I am so in. And then, I have two other siblings and I was trying to get them to buy the spots next to me, and they were like... I don't want to be next to Aunt Barbara.

Marc: Oh, really?

Julia: It was like... will my husband and I be together [said Julia's sister]? And then my other sibling [Julia's brother] was like... I don't want to be next to her husband.

Marc: Do you have to buy more than one [plot]?

Julia: You can have up to four... actually, we could all go in one plot. They just upped it from two people to four people. Can be in one plot.

Marc: Have they changed the distances, or is it...?

Julia: No, it's because people are cremated now. it used to be that you couldn't be cremated if you were Catholic.

Marc: Oh...

Julia: But they changed the rules. So now it's just a heyday at the cemetery. Because you can pack a bunch of people in a plot.

Marc: It's cheaper to cremate, I guess.

Julia: Oh, yeah. Especially if you're not in town when you die.

Marc: (laughs) Transportation is easier.

Julia: Right. You can go on the plane... you're carry-on.

Marc: It's funny. It's not morbid. I think Catholics are pretty good at that. The idea of having lunch at a cemetery, I think there's a comfort with death.

Julia: I find that so true. Actually my daughter just said - because my husband's [family], they're Jewish atheist basically... And proud 3rd generation Jewish atheist... and my daughter said to me recently... you know, Dad's side of the family, they don't talk about - they don't even believe in an afterlife. But they don't talk about people dying that much. But your side of the family, they all believe in this afterlife (even though she knows I don't). And yet, you're totally comfortable talking about being dead... this person is doing to be dead, and soon we'll all be dead. And soon we'll all be in the ground.

And I think that's healthy. I like it.

Marc: However you can accept death, I think it's a good way to go. That's the one thing we don't want to confront. Or we want to deny. But I think you get to a certain age. I always knew that I would die. But when you get older you're like... it might be soon.

Julia: OK, here's my new thing... I'm actually trying to think about death a lot. Like, just think about it.

Marc: Why?

Julia: I think it gives me this more palpable sensation with being alive.

Marc: Accept it and realize it.

Julia: Kind of contemplate death. Just to have it. But, anyway, my new thing is that when I see babies anywhere, I think that when that baby is my age, I won't be alive. It gives you a little tingle. It's coming up. Soon I will not be around.

Marc: I don't like that.

Julia: I don't know why that makes me... it's that time of life.

[End excerpt from the 11/24/2014 Marc Maron WTF Podcast]

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that when you die, you're dead. Although when God returns there will be a resurrection of the dead and God will establish his kingdom here on earth. Meaning, I don't believe in heaven being a place in the sky where people go when they die (a place where they sit around on clouds playing harps, etc).

But I do believe there is an afterlife, which Julia Sweeney, as an atheist, does not. And I don't understand why contemplating death would produce a "palpable sensation with being alive". If I believed that this life was all there was, the sensation it would produce in me is hopelessness. Because life is ALL SO POINTLESS. I mean, any one individual person's life is (in the big picture sense) incredibly short. And then you die. And if you're GONE FOREVER, what is the point? Your loved ones will remember you, and you will "live on" in that sense (in their memories), but they too will die one day. And then you will be wiped from existence.

Historically significant (and famous people) will "live" on. In the history books and in pictures and on film. But, for the rest of us, it will be as if we never existed. And that day will come quickly (given the short amount of time any individual person has on earth). The point is that I just couldn't go on if I thought there was NO POINT to this life. Which, IMO, if you die and that is it? Then there is no point. Given how short life is, meaning that the time you will be here will be insignificant compared to the time you (weren't) and won't be here.

So I can't fathom why thinking of death would be something an atheist would do. I would fear it greatly if I thought that was the end. Or, actually, I'd think let's get to it. Since life is completely meaningless and therefore why live it?

But if Sweeney were still religious? Then her view on death would make more sense to me. Even though, she ISN'T going to be spending a lot of time in the Spokane cemetery, since you cease to exist when you die. Atheists spend time nowhere after death. Not that I think anyone spends time anywhere after death. They may or may not hang around anywhere. I'm not sure, which is why I said I'm INCLINED to believe that when you're dead you're dead. But that God will resurrect the dead when he returns.

Soon we WILL all be dead. And soon we WILL all be in the ground. Or cremated (another inane Catholic rule rewrite. Before cremation was bad and your soul would be in trouble if you were cremated, but now it's acceptable). But I do think that's healthy. As opposed to being a "dismal outlook". It absolutely does NOT, however, give "me this more palpable sensation with being alive". Although I can imagine for someone that it might. Just not an atheist. That an atheist would look at death this way is something I seriously do not understand.

Note that she said that her husband's side of the family does not talk about death. And that they are 3rd generation Jewish atheist. She does, and that is (I think) a holdover from being Catholic. But as an atheist, believing that when you're dead that's it. THAT, I think is a significantly more dismal outlook. And, for me - as a serious pessimist who embraces a dismal outlook - that's a dark place that I can't go.

Video: Episode 553 of Marc Maron's WTF Podcast from 11/24/2014. Note: I start the video at 28:25 because that is when the interview with Julia Sweeney begins (Marc interviews someone else first). The portion I quote above begins at 30:41.

SWTD #364

tRump's Billionaire Cabinet (#trumpdupes #1)

This from Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson... "I can take glee in that - I think Donald Trump conned them... I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he's appointing people from within the system is a good thing".

This "glee taking" as per the Bloomberg article (by Max Abelson) linked to by Buzzfeed's Sr. Writer Doree Shafrir in her 11/30/2016 tweet.

Wall Street Wins Again As Trump Chooses Bankers and Billionaires: After Donald Trump ridiculed Wall Street on the campaign trail, the President-elect tapped former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Steven Mnuchin to be his Treasury secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross to lead the Commerce Department. (11/30/2016).

BTW, Tilson (who, according to the article voted for HRC) also said "I'm a fan of Dodd-Frank, I think banking should be boring... I worry about Wall Street returning to being a casino".

Uh... OK. Maybe HRC voters can also take glee that Steven Mnuchin is Trump's choice for Treasury Secretary?

Nope.

Mnuchin is a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner and movie financier with no government experience who spent the past six months working as Donald Trump's chief fundraiser. ... The part of his background that's likely to get the most scrutiny is the six years he spent running OneWest Bank, a Southern CA lender. In 2009, during the depths of the financial crisis, Mnuchin joined with a group of former Goldman Sachs colleagues and billionaires to buy the remnants of IndyMac, which had collapsed after bingeing on reckless home loans during the frenzy of CA's subprime-mortgage boom. They changed the name to OneWest, turned it around and sold the bank for a big gain last year. Mnuchin may have personally gotten more than $200 million in proceeds from the sale... The bank carried out more than 36,000 foreclosures during Mnuchin's reign, according to the CA Reinvestment Coalition, a San Francisco-based nonprofit whose deputy director, Kevin Stein, dubbed the bank a "foreclosure machine". The group has accused OneWest of shoddy foreclosure practices and avoiding business in minority neighborhoods... (11/21/2016 Bloomberg article by Zachary Mider).

"Steve Mnuchin is the Forrest Gump of the financial crisis" according to Senator (and president?) Elizabeth Warren. In that he "spent two decades at Goldman Sachs helping the bank peddle the same kind of mortgage products that blew up the economy and sucked down billions in taxpayer bailout money". By which she means Mnuchin got rich despite not knowing what he's doing. Except how to game the system. Something (The fictional character) Forrest Gump didn't do. Forrest Gump might have been dumb, but he wasn't a dishonest thief (see video below).

Apparently for Whitney Tilson it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... and for that reason he is filled with glee. I'm not filled with glee. This was one of the reasons I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. He would be appointing people who we could be assured would be taking Wall Street to task.

Will the #TrumpDupes care? Some of them might. But I think the majority won't. Because they are stupid. By the way, while I did vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, I did vote for Hillary Clinton in the General. Because she would have been a lot better than Trump. A LOT better. Even on the issue of reining in Wall Street. Not as good as Bernie Sanders, but LEAGUES better than Trump.

I knew Trump was lying about "draining the swamp". Now he's confirming that he lied with these Wall Street Picks. He is FILLING the swamp. As LOLGOP writes (in a satirical Facebook post) "Trump to appoint dingo to watch baby".

Video: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman reports that banksters Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin join Trump's cabinet as Treasury & Commerce Secretaries. Amy interviews David Dayen of The Nation (author of the article Profiteers of the Great Foreclosure Machine Go to Washington) who says "Mnuchin and Ross led companies that committed fraud to foreclose on millions of homeowners" (5:22).

#CrookedDonald #DonTheCon #draintheswamp #TrumpTransition.

SWTD #363

#CrookedDonald #1

Note: My commentary below contains excerpts from the 11/22/2016 Washington Post article Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on "self-dealing", new filing to IRS shows by David Fahrenthold.

Donald Trump and trophy wife #3 (former nude model Melania Knauss) pose with one of the painters (speed painter Michael Israel) who created paintings of Trump that the Donald or trophy wife used foundation money to purchase ($20k for a 6-foot-tall portrait by Israel and 10k for a 4-foot painting by Havi Schanz).

The #notmypresident-elect also paid 12k in a charity auction for a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet. The issue is that items paid for with money from a charitable foundation MUST be put to charitable use. Trump using foundation money to pay for items for personal use is illegal (it's called "self dealing").

Trump also "settled a dispute with the town of Palm Beach FL over a large flagpole he erected at his Mar-a-Lago Club. The town agreed to waive $120,000 in unpaid fines if Trump's club donated $100,000 to Fisher House, a charity helping wounded veterans and military personnel"... and Trump made the donation with foundation money! More self-dealing.

Additionally "Trump's golf course in New York's Westchester County was sued by a man who had won a $1 million hole-in-one prize during a tournament at the course. The man was later denied the money because Trump's course had allegedly made the hole too short for the prize to be valid... the Trump Foundation donated $158k to the unhappy golfer's charity (afterwhich the lawsuit was settled)".

As per the title of the WP article, "President-elect Donald Trump's charitable foundation has admitted to the Internal Revenue Service that it violated a legal prohibition against self-dealing, which bars nonprofit leaders from using their charity’s money to help themselves, their businesses or their families. The admission was contained in the Donald J. Trump Foundation's IRS tax filings for 2015, which were... uploaded by the Trump Foundation's law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius".

This admission that the Foundation broke the law is NEW. Previously they said they did not break the law, now they said they did. Break the self-dealing law numerous times in multiple years. Note that the lies from the foundation were necessitated by actions of Donald and trophy wife. They are the ones who broke the law.

In essence Trump STOLE money from his foundation contributors. They thought they were giving money for the foundation to put to charitable use, not for Trump to buy shit for himself or settle personal lawsuits.

Which makes me wonder, now that the theft of foundation money has been admitted to, what are the consequences? Jail time for Trump? Unfortunately, no. According to IRS tax code "IRC 6684(2) imposes a penalty upon a person who becomes liable for a tax under IRC 4941 for actions that are willful and flagrant, and not due to reasonable cause. The penalty is equal to the amount of the tax imposed under IRC 4941".

I don't know about you, but that penalty sounds a little light for what amounts to theft. 258K according to the Washington post. Money Trump STOLE "from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the [supposed] billionaire's for-profit businesses" (Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems).

Crooked piece of shit. Now that he's been "elected" preznit he's quietly paying back some of what he's stolen... using the excuse that he doesn't have the time for legal fights. His excuse when he settled the "Trump University" fraud case. Although he will pay $25 million (21 mil for the defrauded students & 4 mil for the lawyers)... but most students will only be able to recoup half of the money they were scammed out of.

crookeddonald.

SWTD #362

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. Change.org 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

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

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

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.

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. 

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).

Footnote
[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

James Comey Is Trying To Influence The Election & Barack Obama Should Fire Him

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity. (Source).

That is what I've read, in any case. That FBI Director James Comey is either trying to influence the election, or is so incompetent that he doesn't realize that this "reopening" of the HRC email investigation (not a reopening, although that is how the RW is characterizing it) could influence the election.

In either case some are saying it's a "firing offense" (an assessment I tend to agree with).

In the past 24 hours, two high-profile figures from opposite sides of the political spectrum have accused FBI Director James B. Comey of potentially and illegally influencing the presidential election. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made the accusation in a letter Sunday night, and Richard Painter, who was an ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the same thing in a New York Times op-ed published Sunday. [Painter says] "We don't need to worry ourselves with what actually motivated Comey because we can just look at what the natural result of his behavior is, and whether there is any explanation for his behavior". In other words: If it smells like a Hatch Act violation and it sounds like a Hatch Act violation, it may be a Hatch Act violation. ("It's a firing offense": Why James Comey may have broken the law with Clinton emails By Amber Phillips. 10/30/2016 Washington Post).

As for what the hell is going on (*skip* to my summary immediately following to save time/not have to read the entire article except).

The FBI found the new evidence during an unrelated inquiry into former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner regarding an allegation that he sent illicit, sexual text messages to an underage girl in NC. In the course of that investigation, agents seized a laptop computer Weiner shared with his wife, Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who has already been questioned by the FBI during its investigation. The bureau found the emails now being examined on this shared device... Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Dept officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there... As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton's server, and printed the emails from there. ... Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way... This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. (Hillary Clinton's emails: The Real Reason The FBI Is Reviewing More of Them by Kurt Eichenwald. 10/28/2016 NewsWeek).

So, in summary... what happened was that the FBI, investigating Weiner for sending his pervert texts to an underage girl, grabbed a laptop shared by the pervert Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin (who is now separating from the pervert), and they found that Huma used the laptop to send emails to herself (from her UNCLASSIFIED State Dept. account to a Yahoo account). Because it was easier to print from Yahoo. Because HRC likes reading hard copy, as opposed to reading from a screen.

As for what is on the laptop, it isn't know yet. Another reason why Comey releasing this statement now is so f*cking stupid. This will very likely be another big nothingburger. Although it could influence the election, which is why it is a violation of the Hatch Act, which is why I say YES, his ass should be fired.

Although, knowing that Trumpers will scream that the firing is politically motivated, Obama should wait until after the election (given that it is mere days away, and the damage is already done). But as soon as HRC is declared the winner? Comey should be handed his walking papers (a "dishonorable" discharge from his position).

BTW, the idiot blogger Luke Spencer's take on this CONFORMS to the Republican narrative. (NOTE: you can stop reading now if you don't care what the blog Troll Luke has to say). According to this MORON, "these Clinton haters are at it again"... by which he means Clinton supporters are "haters". He isn't referring to people who hate Hillary Clinton (a group that includes Luke Spencer).

Luke the Puke says "the Clinton haters are going nuts over Comey's latest statement" because, you know, he likely violated the Hatch Act. But that isn't the reason according to Puke. Puke says Anthony Weiner is "Clinton's pervert buddy". Because HRC served in the Senate while the disgraced Congressman served in the House. No, that isn't it. They are "buddies" because Weiner's (soon to be ex) wife is HRC's top aide.

Clearly a moronic assertion... that the husband of her aide is her "buddy". But such idiocy is to be expected from a moron like Puke. An idiot who says he is a Liberal, but spouts Republican talking points.

For example, Puke says Comey asserted that HRC would "normally would be disciplined for such action" (using a private server) but in reality Comey said "the decision to not recommend charges against the now-Democratic nominee wasn't a close call".

Puke also claims "the FBI investigated all his emails and what do you know, Clinton appears on those emails". But the truth is all Comey has said is that the emails on Huma's laptop "appear to be pertinent to the investigation" and that the FBI still needs to "determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation" (source).

But that does not stop the lying Clinton-hating Puke. He also refers to HRC using the Trump-created nickname, "Crooked Hillary". This, I think, points to the possibility of Puke being an undercover Trump voter. Trump attempted to tie Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton's affairs. Puke makes an even bigger and more absurd leap, and attempts to link her to Anthony Weiner's sexting.

Also remember that Puke wrote (on his blog Words And Music) "I'm rooting for Trump". But ONLY to "to shove it down the throats of these mean, hate filled, crazy liberals" (he SAYS). Hate directed at him because (he says) "I won't join in their hate fest". And because (he says) "I dare to voice negative comments about Clinton".

But Puke lies. I don't care (that much) about his ill-informed Clinton criticisms. HRC is most definitely not without faults (another false assertion he makes... that HRC supporters "claim their candidate Hillary is without any faults"). He is entitled to his wrong opinion. I do take exception to his lies, both about HRC and those who support her. People such as myself (although I voted for B-S in the primary, I have early-voted for HRC in the General).

But even then I'd be willing to have a rational discussion with Puke about HRC and her faults. But this is an idiot who has trolled my blog for YEARS. As TOM and as Steve (100% proven that he was Steve, given the FACT that he changed the name on the "Steve" account to "Luke").

But even if he was not TOM (more on my proof that Luke is also behind the "TOM" account in my next post), and even if he was not Steve (which he proveably is, given that the account # are a match)... he still trolled my blog... as "Luke" (see SWTD #346). I refer to his absurd accusations of "plagiarism" against myself and others. And his sending of his commentaries (submitted as comments) to the blogs of others "so they don't have to steal them". Now with the addition of a "scumbag" (absurdity Flying Junior is aware of).

Something I asked him to stop doing... which prompted the following response.

Luke: Sorry, King Shithead PSYCHO KILLER TRUMP!!! You will continue to get my posts marked, "Here is my post for today so you don't have to steal it FUCKHEAD!" Because you and your asshole buddies deserve it. I simply won't respond. So enjoy my last comment to you KING SHITHEAD PSYCH KILLER TRUMP!!! If I have anything to say about you King Shithead Psycho Killer Trump, it will be posted on my sidebar where I have listed your retarded behavior. (10/2/2016, unpublished comment).

Sorry, Luke, but you sending me (and others) your posts "so I don't have to steal it" makes YOU the troll. I mean, even though I'd never heard of "Luke" before... one of his accusations of "stealing" his posts was the very first comment he submitted to my blog. HOW could I have stolen anything he'd written when I'd never heard of him and never been to his blog?

Anyway, 7/27/2016 was the first time he commented on my blog as "Luke". As I previously mentioned, he had already been trolling my blog (using the SAME account) as "Steve" for YEARS (although I didn't notice the matching account #s until later).

The point being that Puke is a lying troll. I don't believe he is "Liberal". Maybe he THINKS he is. Puke's latest post does not sound like it was written by a "Liberal" to me. Given his use of many Republican talking points. And use of the Trump-generated nickname "Crooked Hillary". And bashing (with lies) of his "fellow" Liberals.

Maybe he WAS a Liberal. His commentaries as TOM on his old blog Stay A While (inactive for years now) sound as if they were written from a Liberal perspective. But now? Who knows. The only one SURE thing is that he is a troll.

Finally (file this under "interesting/bewildering"), Luke the Puke (posting as Steve on 9/05/2013) told me "I'm planing a surprise for you". But no "surprise" ever materialized. Now I'm thinking that Steve returning as "Luke" might be the surprise he was referring to. I mean, yeah, it is (at least a little) surprising that someone would be dumb enough to think they could accuse many bloggers of plagiarizing them... with ZERO proof.

Video: James Comey's actions influence 2016 elections. Excerpted from CNBC's Squawk Box (4:44).

PE: Harry Reid: FBI director should face criminal charges, 10/31/2016. SZ: October Ambush, 10/31/2016.

SWTD #356