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

Donald Trump Is Right: The Election Is Rigged

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive! ~ Donald Trump Tweet, 10/17/2016.

What he isn't saying is that the election will be rigged IN HIS FAVOR. IMO he knows this. Or he may not. Either he's delusional and really thinks he can win, or he's pre-explaining his upcoming loss. He didn't really lose, the election was "stolen".

I mention this because I heard this narrative being played up on the news tonight. Although I do live in TN, where Trump is projected to win. They played clips of Trump saying the election was being rigged, then cut to TN election officials saying what they were doing to stop "voter fraud" (when I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary I had to show my driver's license).

As if voter fraud occurs in significant enough numbers to sway an election. It doesn't. Trump's claims of "large scale voter fraud" are total bullshit. I was watching Thom Hartmann today, and he brought up the fact that "a comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast". (That's according to "Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy". 8/6/2014 WP Wonkblog article).

It is rare because "pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot... is a slow, clunky way to steal an election". The better way to steal an election is, instead of individual voters cheating (voter fraud), is for those in charge of running the election to cheat (election fraud).

Which is the purpose of all these "voter ID" laws being pushed by Republicans. The goal is to reduce the number of people voting. Poor people, African Americans, students, and old people are more likely to vote Democrat, and more likely to not have an ID. Some Republicans are surely prevented from voting, but more Democrats are disenfranchised than Republicans.

So, YES, the election will be rigged, but the rigging is being done by Republicans with the goal of preventing Democrats from voting. Previously this strategy got gwb elected. Twice. Although I think that hacking (changing the vote totals electronically) played a part as well (in Ohio). This explains why Karl Rove was so sure Romney had won in 2012.

He knew the fix was in. But Obama prevailed by pure numbers. Turnout was especially high that year. People stood in line for hours and hours (because Republican election officials closed polling stations/saw to it that there was an inadequate number of voting machines). Some gave up. Either because they someplace to be (job, family obligations) or because they'd simply had it. Others got mad and continued to stand in line because they KNEW those in charge didn't want them to vote.

This time around I think Trump, being the terrible candidate that he is, will lose despite the rigging. Rigging that will benefit him! It wasn't enough for McCain to defeat Obama. It wasn't enough for Romney to defeat Obama. And they were much better candidates than Trump.

BTW, Republican leaders are denying the rigging because they know it benefits Republicans. They LAST thing they want is for anyone to take such claims seriously. Democrats have, so far, gone along with the rigging (even though it benefits Republicans) because they think making an issue of the FACT that it's occurring will depress the vote.

People will think, "it's rigged. my vote doesn't count. why bother voting". And they'll stay home. Me, I think you can't fix a problem unless you acknowledge it exists. But the problem that Trump says might/will result in him losing? It's not happening. If/when Trump loses, it will be IN SPITE of the rigging. Because he is a terrible candidate.

A misogynist who's admitted to sexually assaulting women. BTW, I did think that Bill Clinton was DONE when Gennifer Flowers came forward during his 1992 Presidential election campaign. I was surprised when he stayed in the race and was elected (yes, I voted for him). But Bill Clinton never admitted anything. Unlike Trump, who BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women (on the Access Hollywood "hot mic" tape).

Not that he had a high probability of winning previously. But now I'd say he's going to go down in flames with Hillary defeating him in a blowout. Even with the rigging in Trump's favor. Or so I hope. I mean, I was sure that bush would lose in 2004. Given his starting of 2 unnecessary and illegal wars. Proof the electorate is pretty stupid. Despite the rigging that benefited bush, enough dumb people voted for him. Because you "don't change a horse midstream" (change presidents while at war).

Are the voters stupid enough to elect Trump? It doesn't look like it, but we won't know for certain until the actual voting is done... and NOT every vote is counted (why provisional ballots are referred to as "placebo ballots").

Image: A false internet meme debunked by Snopes. But, even though Trump didn't say it, it doesn't mean it's not true. Trump HAS lied and his idiot followers ARE eating it up.

SWTD #355

Film Music Composer Danny Elfman Writes Horror Score For Trump's Stalking Of Hillary

They're coming to get you, Barbra ~ Johnny Blair to his sister upon spotting a zombie (although he is unaware of the creature's undead state) while visiting their father's grave. Quote from the opening scene of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead, 1962

During the 2nd 2016 potus "town hall" format debate (10/9/2016), Donald Trump, when Hillary Clinton was speaking, loomed behind her. Was he trying to intimidate her? He denies it, of course. Just as he denies the sniffing. Hillary Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres that she could sense his anger and feel him stalking her.

His anger concerned the Access Hollywood hot mic tape of Trump and Billy Bush "having a conversation about chicks 11 years ago" (as characterized by a misogynist Libertarian).

Trump, IMO, instead of being contrite and genuinely remorseful for his "locker room talk", is actually seething with anger at people having the gall to question that he, as a rich and powerful man, can't grab women by their crotches. Of course he thinks he can sexually assault women (or "chicks"), which is why he bragged about doing so.

Why in the world is Trump standing so close to Hillary? Is he thinking that he'd like to reach out and strangle her? Composer Danny Elfman said it was like watching a zombie movie, and that he could imagine that "at any moment [Trump] was going to attack her, rip off her head, and eat her brains".

Here is the clip with the music Elfman wrote (2:07).

Danny Elfman, in addition to being a well known (to those who follow film music) and in-demand composer of music for film, is a Democrat. He is also married to the (now retired) actress Bridget Fonda (with whom he has 3 children). Although that factoid has nothing to do with this post. I just threw that out there because, while you might never have heard of Danny Elfman, you've probably heard of Bridget Fonda.

Danny Elfman's brother Richard Elfman has a son named Bodhi. Bodhi's wife is the actress Jenna Elfman. Jenna Elfman is best known for her role in Dharma and Greg (a sitcom that ran from 1997 to 2002). Thomas Gibson, who played "Greg", was (until recently) a regular on the long running series Criminal Minds.

As for Danny Elfman, he used to be (along with his brother Richard) a member of the rock band Oingo Boingo (1972-1995). Danny was the songwriter and lead singer of the band. During his Oingo Boingo years Elfman contributed songs to a number of films, including Weird Science. This would be the "1985 American teen comic science fiction film written and directed by John Hughes and starring Anthony Michael Hall, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, and Kelly Le Brock" (via Wikipedia).

Elfman became a film score composer when he, having been asked by Tim Burton and Paul Rubens, wrote the music for the 1985 comedy Pee-wee's Big Adventure (although he had previously written the score for the 1982 film The Forbidden Zone, which was directed by his brother). The Forbidden Zone was Elfman's first film score.

His 2nd film score gig, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, was the start of a long relationship with Tim Burton (for whom he scored many movies). In addition to writing the music for the 1989 Burton version of Batman (the one starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson), he is known for composing the theme for The Simpsons (although JUST the theme. The series itself has been scored since 1990 by Alf Clausen).

Regarding Danny Elfman being a Democrat, he wrote a piece for the Huffington Post back in 2008 supporting Barack Obama. The article, titled Battling Our Greatest Fear, concerned the fact that "Sarah Palin was my worst nightmare".

Trump, in my opinion, is an even worse nightmare, which must be why Elfman was inspired to write horror music for Trump's stalking of Hillary. Entertainment Weekly says "Elfman's creepy score gives the video a slasher movie vibe".

Image: Danny Elfman and Bridget Fonda attend the world premiere of the movie The Hulk (which Elfman wrote the music for) at Universal Studios on 6/17/2003 in Universal City CA.

See Also [1] Re A Misogynist Moron's Post On Hypothetical Hypocrisy. OST #181 10/11/2016. [2] Tweet concerning DJT humping chair at debate.

SWTD #354

Donald Trump Probably Paid Zero Taxes For 18 Years Because He Lost $916 Million In 1995 (As A Business Genius Does)

He did have to pay taxes in New Jersey. ...New Jersey, at the time... did not allow passive losses to be deducted from ordinary income ~ NYT columnist James B. Stewart in a CNBC interview (see video below).

As we all now know, or are pretty damn sure concerning, Donald Trump's tax returns would show he has not federal income taxes in many years past. This came up during the first POTUS debate, and Trump said, in response to a remark by Hillary Clinton, that he didn't pay because he's smart.

Servile Trump toady #2 Rudy Giuliani agrees, saying that Trump (because he pays no taxes) is a "business genius".

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns [and] Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's [leaked] 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. (Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner and Megan Twoheyoct. NYT 10/1/2016).

Really? Losing $916 million due to mismanagement and bad business decisions means you're GOOD at business? Or did he only lose money on paper? By which I mean were these fake "loses" cooked up by a crooked accountant so Trump could avoid paying what he owed? Maybe technically legal, maybe not. But certainly morally dubious.

BTW, according to the NYT "the tax documents arrived in a manila envelope... at the Times with a return address of the Trump Organization". I've heard that the person responsible for leaking the documents is Marla Maples, Trump's 2nd wife (and the one who was married to him at the time).

Ha ha.

BTW, as for Trump's servile toadies (of which he has two three*) the other one would be the governor who lied and said he didn't know some lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed as an act of political payback against "Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (a Democrat) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election" (Wikipedia excerpt).

Lefty Talker Stephanie Miller refers to the toadies as "leather slaves", and, when servile toady #2 made the absurd comment re Trump being a "genius" for losing a boatload of money running casinos, it was after the ball gag was removed from his mouth and he was let out of the basement.

Video1: Rudy Giuliani calls Trump an "absolute genius" for losing a LOT of money and taking advantage of the tax code to not pay federal taxes, 10/2/2016 (0:04).

Video2: NYT columnist James B Stewart on CNBC says that Trump must explain his nearly billion-dollar loss and what breaks in the tax code contributed to it (4:13).

Something else that caught my eye (this was in the James B. Stewart article to which the CNBC video was attached), was the following.

"If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The tax code is tilted toward the rich in its statutory framework, its exceptions, and in how it is enforced and administered", said Steven M. Rosenthal, a real estate tax specialist and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Yet more proof that, when the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart said that the "economy is rigged and that only certain people can benefit from it [is a] myth", he was wrong. Dead wrong. But that a wealth-worshipping stooge such as Hart thinks the economy ISN'T rigged is really NOT a surprise. Yet he frequently rails against crony capitalism (as does Lying Gary Johnson). And, yes, the Hartster thinks he can have it both ways.

* I don't know how I could have forgotten Newt Gingrich. Although he hasn't been out there a lot. And he doesn't come across (to me) quite as servile and desperate as Christie and Giuliani.

Democracy Now: Trump May Have Paid No Taxes for 18 Years, 1995 Tax Returns Show, 10/3/2016. Progressive Eruptions: Trump 10/3/2016 Headlines.

SWTD #353

How Frequently Do Con Gun Nuts Dream About Firearms?

To see a gun in your dream represents aggression, anger, and potential danger. You could be on the defensive about something. Or you may be dealing with issues of passiveness/aggressiveness and authority/dependence. Alternatively, a gun is a symbol of power and pride. Perhaps you are looking for shelter or protection in your dream. From a Freudian perspective, a gun represents the penis and male sexual drive. Thus, the gun may mean power or impotence, depending on whether the gun went off or misfired... excerpt from the "Gun" entry, the Dream Dictionary.

Over the last few days I've received multiple emails (both from NewsMax and Glenn Beck) that try to tempt me to open them via a contest in which I could win $1500 bucks that I can put toward my "dream gun".

Upon opening the NewsMax communication, I found that it was a "special message from our advertising sponsor, United States Concealed Carry Association". NewsMax sez "our sponsors help us keep our news service free, though we do not necessarily endorse this message".

Don't endorse 1500K for a "dream gun"? I'm guessing that's standard legalize to protect themselves. If, for instance, someone wins the "dream gun" and then kills someone with it. United States Concealed Carry Association could be sued, but not NewsMax.

Here is a pic of what a NewsMax reader's "dream gun" might look like.



Note that the "prize" is actually a gift certificate. To what store, the fine print doesn't say. Also, if you enter, they'll for sure grab your email address for their own use. And possibly resell it.

Anyway, looks like any of these would be just what one would need to hunt deer with. Or blow away an "oxygen thief" (AKA a home invader)... likely a Black male or males named Dre, Mookie, Ray-Ray and Slice.

Because blowing away one of their fellow humans is a Conservative male base racist fetish. I don't find it hard to believe at all that many of them lay their heads on their pillows and night and, after drifting off, dream of using their hand-gun or assault rifle to kill violent Black home invaders there to vacuum up their oxygen.

Video: A lyric from the Prussian Blue song, Aryan Man Awake, says "and black masked men with guns come bashing down the doors". Something that the White racists live in fear of. "Turn your fear to hate" is the advice PB gives. And shoot that violent Black man dead. As YouTube commenter Austin Gooden said "this song should be our new national anthem! seig heil!!!!!" (4:27).


BTW, Prussian Blue videos are still up on YouTube, despite "the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased... those leftists are" (proof Willis Hart is an idiot).

PS: I'm not saying all gun nuts are neo-Nazi White Nationalists. But I bet a lot of them are. And I also bet that all White Nationalists are gun nuts. Yet another reason increased gun control might be a good idea.

 swtd-352 

Heil, Herr Trump, Our Possible Future Führer

The Nazi salute or Hitler salute... is a gesture that was used as a greeting in Nazi Germany. The salute is performed by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Usually, the person offering the salute would say "Heil Hitler!"... In Switzerland, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology. (Wikipedia/Nazi Salute).

I submitted a comment concerning Trump's endorsement by 88 generals to a progressive website, but the host dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory". I remain, however, 99 percent convinced that the following is true.

In a move to boost his national security credibility, Donald Trump released an endorsement letter signed by 88 retired military figures. Now some are questioning if there is a hidden anti-Semitic message behind the statement - since the number 88 is a well-known code for "Heil Hitler". (Is Donald Trump's Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code? by Lilly Maier. Forward.com 9/7/2016).

I'm convinced this is VERY likely true because this is the Trump strategy - to get a greater percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney. According to Rollcall.com "to win, Donald Trump likely needs to run the table with white voters".

With his appeal to the Alt-right (hiring of Steve Bannon, for example) Trump is attempting to get the votes of White people who don't ordinarily turn out. Because the GOP isn't racist enough for these KKK-types. On the other hand, a more direct appeal would turn off many more tolerant White Republicans. Although (IMO) these people have to know what's going on (disenfranchisement of Black voters, demonization of Hispanics, etc).

But, as long as it's kept on the down-low, it's OK with them. Apparently. Even the previous head of the RNC, Michael Steele, was willing to ignore/deny the fact that the GOP is still employing Nixon's Southern Stragety.

And White Nationalists are KNOWN to speak in code. So, IMO, of course the Trump campaign is using this code to speak to the White racists, saying (wink, wink) "Trump is with you". Like I said, it's been his strategy all along. People need to wake up to this fact.

Possible VP Pence knows this is the strategy as well, which is why he refused to condemn David Duke as a deplorable in a recent interview. In a 9/12/2016 interview with Wolf Blitzer, the Blitz asked Pence if he'd call Duke "deplorable", and Pence said no. Because he isn't in the business of "name calling"! (This would be the same David Duke who said that "Voting against Trump is treason to your heritage").

Right. It isn't that Pence is opposed to "name calling". The reason is because Trump needs the deplorable vote to win. Or, he's betting that it will give him the win. Hence his adoption of their coded communications. This explains why Trump would retweet a meme originally tweeted by @WhiteGenocideTM.

Innocent enough, huh? It's just a picture of Jeb with a "vote Trump" sign. But what about the name attached to the Twitter account, "White Genocide"?! Why would Trump retweet something from this account? And, no, I don't think he overlooked who he was retweeting.

Here's another of @WhiteGenocide's photoshopped images.

That's a Nazi Trump executing Senator Bernie Sanders. No, Trump didn't retweet this picture, but this IS an image designed to appeal to the kind of people Trump wants the votes of. Which is why he made the "mistake" of retweeting a anti-semitic image of Hillary Clinton.

Although, when called on the source of the image (came from "8chan's /pol/ — an Internet message board for the alt-right, a digital movement of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists"), he had his social media team doctor up the pic (replacing the Star of David with a circle).

Dog whistling to deplorables while not getting too much attention from the media can be tricky. But it is ABSOLUTELY what the Trump campaign is doing. It's not a "conspiracy theory". (Note: no disrespect to the owner of the aforementioned blog intended. I simply disagree with her on this. We aren't talking about a conspiracy theory here, but the Trump campaign strategy).

SWTD #351

The Day The Terrorists Won (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)

The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution ~ excerpt from a 11/15/2015 Salon article by Bret Weinstein.

Note that by "the terrorists" I refer to the Saudi Nationals who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as their financiers. In addition, among "the terrorists", I include the accomplices in the bush administration. Accomplices in that george w bush knew a terrorist attack was likely. Knew the likely target. And knew an attack was imminent. Yet he did nothing.

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip* Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ----, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks... Al Qaeda members ---- including some who are U.S. citizens ---- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip* We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ... A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black]. Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months. "The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

But, instead of taking the warnings seriously, the author of the Politico article concludes that the warnings were actively ignored (referred to by Senator Al Franken in his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them as "operation ignore").

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan" "And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility". However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. [Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

So, while I don't believe that bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC), I do think the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, but they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate" (as a Libertarian blogger called my conclusions awhile back). Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad". He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton. While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

Which is why I conclude that, given the fact that 9/11 was an evil act, that bush (as a participant in that event) is an evil man. Because of his inactions. BTW, most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah).

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

And that the plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers actually got an assist from the then sitting president? That is why I say the terrorists won. This was the event with which OBL kicked off his jihad against the West. A jihad that rages on today (in the form of ISIS). It also provided the bushies with the excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that they were hungering for.

If not for the "failures" of the bush administration I think that ISIS would probably not exist. Something to think about on this, the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our nation. That a former president HELPED the terrorists and (with his illegal invasion of Iraq) GREATLY empowered our enemies (DSD #31).

Image: gwb and OBL meet prior to 9/11/2001 to coordinate their plans to bring down the Twin Towers. Note that I am not a 9/11 Truther. My commentary from 11/17/2009 titled "Best Friends George and Osama" (SWTD #30) was a work of satire. But only in part.

  

SWTD #350. See also OST #168.

Lying Gary AKA Dishonest Johnson; Ayn Rand Hated Poors #5

Hoi polloi is an expression from Greek that means the many or, in the strictest sense, the majority. In English, it has been corrupted by giving it a negative connotation to signify deprecation of the working class, commoners, the masses or common people in a derogatory... sense ~ Definition via Wikipedia.

According to a new Gary Johnson ad, Bill Weld (his Libertarian VP pick) has deemed his running mate "Honest Johnson". In said ad he describes how Johnson is "one of the most honest people" he's met. Almost "painfully honest", he sez. (Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson").

But I agree with Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann, who, on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program, said (in regards to Gary and Bill) "they're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

For example, they use the words freedom and liberty a LOT. But what do they really mean when they use these words? Obviously (look at their platform) what they're talking about (primarily) is freedom from taxation. And, that's freedom for rich people to not have to contribute to funding the social safety net (DSB #44).

Proof of this is their stated objective of "we should eliminate the entire social welfare system" (Source: Official Libertarian Party Website). But, in spite of the f*cking platform, Lying Gary says "we can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without" (SWTD #343).

But we already have a safety net. We need to strengthen it, not "create" it. I assume Lying Gary says "create" because he's thinking the private sector is going to create a new one after the Libertarians (should they get their way) completely destroy the one we already have (their STATED objective).

Now Lying Gary KNOWS that's NOT the take-away the majority of people get from his message of "nobody goes without". Few people are thinking... YES, nobody goes without means we're going to completely dismantle the safety net (the one we have currently). By "eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest" (direct quote from the LP website).

Sure, all politicians lie (or shade the truth to some degree), but lying about what your freaking platform explicitly states? Me, I'd say the moniker "honest Johnson" ABSOLUTELY does not apply. If a nickname denoting how truthful Gary might be is what Bill wants, I say we go with "Lying Gary" or "Dishonest Johnson".

As for the "painful" part, YES, I think the dismantling of our entire safety net would be QUITE painful for a lot of people. Perhaps not for rich people (unless they have consciences). Although Libertarians believe that it's more morally objectionable to "steal" from people (i.e. tax them), so many (if not all) of them might be fine and dandy about their policies (if instituted) killing people.

I mean, it is a fact that the Ayn-Rand worshiping Libertarian considers the unwashed masses to be worthless trash (parasites and takers). As their heroine wrote "what are your masses of humanity but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it".

This being a quote from the original version of Rand's book We The Living. Although this quote was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication (according to a poster on the Thom Hartmann message board as well as a number of other sources) [1].

Further proof that Rand hated poor people. Heck, I'd say she clearly and indisputably loathed them after reading this comment. Although if they're "fuel" that kinda belies her characterization of them as "moochers" and "parasites". Sounds to me like she's saying they're good (to take advantage of) for their cheap labor (a sentiment shared by many Libertarians and Republicans).

But that's NOT the reason Libertarians like Lying Gary will cite when they talk about eliminating the minimum wage. No, they'll spin BS about how no minimum wage is a GOOD thing, in that it will lead to higher employment. Self-serving baloney (in that it benefits the rich owners) which has been proven false. But that's what you get from Libertarians like Lying Gary (falsehoods that benefit the Oligarchs and hurt everyone else).

BTW, in regards to the "hoi polloi" definition at the top of this post... the Wikipedia entry also notes further synonyms (for the Greek term) that also express the same or similar distaste for the common people, including the great unwashed, the plebeians or plebs, the rabble, the masses, the dregs of society, riffraff, the herd, the proles (proletariat), sheeple, and peons.

Reminiscent of lice, moochers and parasites - the terms Ayn Rand used. Which goes to show that hating poors goes back a LONG way. The goal with this language being to justify the wealthy class having most of the wealth. They deserve it. And they deserve to get it by screwing lower classes. And disguising this fact (they're taking more than they deserve) by painting poor people as undeserving.

Although Rand was more or less honest about her hatred of the less fortunate. I mean, yeah, she denied it, and you might say she was more indifferent than seething with hatred... but you'd be wrong. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged being proof of that. In that she engaged in some serious mass casualty porn in her 1168-page doorstop. In that millions of worthless poors got their just deserts. By which I mean they died via starvation, train "accidents", etc. (SWTD #303).

That a similar die-off of the worthless eaters might occur under a Johnson administration is a no-brainer. Although he'd still have to contend with Congress. But, if Republicans controlled both houses? I think he could ram through quite a bit of his anti-poor and anti-middle class agenda. Anti these lower classes in that a Johnson administration would seek to push us further along the path to full blown oligarchy.

OK, so Lying Gary says "it's game over on any chance of winning the White House if he does not make it to the debate stage" and THAT is an honest statement. But it would also be game over is Gary got into the debates and then proceeded to tell the truth about the Libertarian platform.

Not that Lying Gary would stand a chance either way (in or out of the debates). Donald Trump locking up a larger percentage of the rube vote than Gary. And he gets it his fake populism (appeal to working people). Mostly by saying he's opposed to the TPP. While Lying Gary is in favor of it.

Point is, we've got populists running on both sides (or, that's how they're presenting themselves). Which is why it was game over from the get-go for a poor-hating, anti-populist, pro-rich stooge like Lying Gary Johnson. Even though Lying Gary is doing slightly better this time (due to support from Never-Trumpers and scarily uninformed Bernie Sanders supporters).

Video: Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson" (1:02).

Footnote
[1] Check Google and you can confirm the validity of this quote, although I first heard it from Thom Hartmann on his program, as broadcast on Free Speech TV on 8/11/2016. Thom also referred to Rand as "one sick puppy"; a sentiment I agree with 1000 percent. I also Googled it, and found a discussion on the Objectivism Online Forum.

SWTD #349, ARHP #5.

Julian Assange Wants Donald Trump To Be The Next US President

True information does good ~ Julian Assange (dob 7/3/1971) an Australian computer programmer, journalist and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/26/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom welcomes Ellen Ratner from Talk Media News to the program and, during their discussion Ellen shares news she has heard regarding Julian Assange and his threats of releasing hacked data that will send Hillary Clinton to prison (data that was either obtained by Russian hacker groups or DNC staffer Seth Rich - who HRC had murdered for his betrayal).

Ellen Ratner: Julian Assange is saying he's going to do a new leak from WikiLeaks. Now, I have to tell you something, my brother Michael was Julian Assange's attorney before he died (that's before Michael died, Julian Assange is still alive)... and a lot of people think that what Julian Assange is actually doing is, he has made a bet that he's going to do better under Trump than Hillary Clinton, so he's going after Hillary Clinton. Thom Hartmann: Really? That's a very bad bet. Ellen Ratner: That's what the inside score is telling us. I'm hearing that from the behind-the-scenes folks. Thom Hartmann: In other words Assange is using WikiLeaks for his own purposes.

As I discussed in SWTD #342, Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

The title of my commentary was "On The Possibility Of The WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Hacked Material Throwing The Election To Donald Trump", and, at the time, my belief that Julian Assange was just going with the material he had. That is, he has material regarding HRC, but not regarding DJT. And that he was just doing what his organization does - leak governmental material.

I mean, the guy isn't a US citizen, so it doesn't matter to him as much if DJT becomes president. But now, with this revelation from Ellen Ratner (an individual I trust), it's looking like Assange WANTS Trump to be president. I'm not sure what Ellen is referring to by Assange betting that "he's going to do better". Except to guess that Assange is worried about being snatched by the US and spirited away to the United States for trial.

The reclusive figure fears he will ultimately be sent to the US where he could face the death penalty. In an interview with The Times magazine, Mr Assange claimed it had become too dangerous to even poke his head out the embassy's balcony doors. [Due to] fears he will be assassinated or even "droned" by the American intelligence services if he leaves his hideout within the Ecuadorean embassy. (Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims he'll be killed by CIA drone if he leaves embassy by Tom Batchelor. 8/30/2015 express.co.uk).

Assange may also not want HRC to be president (and be trying to use WikiLeaks to tip the election in favor of Trump), as he has written "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States" (Source).

I don't know what cables Assange has read, but I think he has a point. Although we're already in a fight with ISIS and I think whoever is president will have enough on their plate without starting any new conflicts. But HRC is definitely a hawk (SWTD #323).

But if Assange is going after HRC to see if you can influence US elections and get DJT elected president? I say he should f*ck off. Especially if his motivation is that DJT will consider him a friendly (like he does with Putin) and not try to prosecute or kill him. I haven't heard anything about the US wanting to prosecute Assange. Not recently, anyway.

I thought Assange got into this line of work for altruistic reasons. Because he's a believer in governmental transparency. But now he's trying to get Trump elected to save his own skin? That's IF he's correct and that a president Trump would call off the assassins and circling drones. Me, I don't know if Assange is mostly paranoid here or if his fears are genuine.

I'm sure our government doesn't like him. And I don't think that would change under a Trump administration. In any case, Assange said (re any possible Trump leaks) "we'd be very happy to receive and publish it". But he says he has nothing. And he also says "the problem with the Trump campaign is it's actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth every second day" (Assange: WikiLeaks's Trump info no worse than him).

So this definitely sounds possible. Unless Assange was able to obtain (or has) Trump's tax returns (showing he pays no taxes, owes a lot of money to Russian oligarchs, has a net worth that is a lot lower than what he says it is, shows he donates very little or nothing to charity, etc), actual physical results (not that BS letter from Dr. Bornstein), and other unknown secrets.

BTW, that's not counting the horrible stuff that's out there but that the press is ignoring. Such as the fact that he raped his ex-wife Ivana (sometime before 1992) and the pending lawsuit regarding his alleged rape of a 13YO in 1994.

And then there's the marginally covered ugly Trump facts, first among these being his pandering to the alt-Right racists and the fact that (IMO) he's a huge racist himself (SWTD #347). As well as a sexist and possibly an anti-semite (we know his new campaign manager Steve Bannon is a racist, a homophobe and an anti-semite).

So how about you, Julian Assange, stop trying to make this man our next president? I mean, I'll take HRC over DJT any day of the week. Fact is, I think she'll make a decent president (even though I was for Bernie Sanders), while Donald Trump would be a disaster in more ways then I think we can possibly imagine. The racist "alt Right" is LOVING Trump, and you KNOW a Trump presidency would further embolden them (SWTD #347).

Which is why I say that, whatever "true information" Assange has on HRC, if it swings the election to DJT, that will definitely not be good. It will, in fact be bad. Very bad.

Video1: Megyn Kelly interviews Julian Assange. Fox Nooz, of course, being receptive to dirt that could bring down the HRC campaign (21:40).

Video2: Rightwingers call for Julian Assange to be assassinated. Institutional Democrats call for him to be prosecuted. I'm opposed to either, especially given the fact that Assange is not a US citizen and not subject to our laws (2:42).

SWTD #348