Brant Gaede Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 nutzso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Looks like John Podesta is not the only one interested in UFOs. What a shame for him and his that Hillary didn't win as this will set back government-funded UFO research for decades. btw - I downloaded the MK-ULTRA FOIA stuff a long time ago and read through some of it. Nasty stuff. Our government had no business mucking around with mind-control like that. What's worse, when the heat was on, they shipped the really awful stuff to Canada (Donald Ewen Cameron). And the Canadians had a ball... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Looks like John Podesta is not the only one interested in UFOs. What a shame for him and his that Hillary didn't win as this will set back government-funded UFO research for decades. btw - I downloaded the MK-ULTRA FOIA stuff a long time ago and read through some of it. Nasty stuff. Our government had no business mucking around with mind-control like that. What's worse, when the heat was on, they shipped the really awful stuff to Canada (Donald Ewen Cameron). And the Canadians had a ball... Michael Time to put on our tinfoil hats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 50 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Time to put on our tinfoil hats. Bob, Tell that to the victims of MK-ULTRA. There are still some seriously damaged people left over from that program walking around. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Sometimes I remember facts and sometimes I remember scifi fiction. Sometimes fiction becomes reality. Which is this? I remember hearing about a very nasty crowd control devise with a spinning wheel that can induce an epileptic style “fit” and sound effects that “forces” a crowd to cover their ears and eyes . . . and hurriedly back away. It may have been tried in England, and deemed too inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The following is a long rant by Alex Jones, but I'm posting it as reference because of one thing he said near the end--and he didn't even go deeply into it. It looks like Trump is going to release a lot of DARPA classified technology to everybody (after the US profits from it some, of course). If that happens, this is much huger than anything that's happened so far. DARPA essentially created the Internet and does all kinds of unimaginable things. For instance, according to Alex, there seems to be some kind of preliminary cure for cancer in the classified stuff. You don't have to listen to the rant. The gist is Alex believes the elite ruling class has been sitting on a lot of this technology to figure out a way to keep it only for themselves or dole tiny bits of it out to the public in increments at massive profits. Frankly, I wouldn't put this past them. Just keep your antenna tuned for news about it. In fact, I own a book on DARPA I just dug out of the pile (several, actually, but this is the one I dug out as it is the best): The Pentagon's Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America's Top-Secret Military Research Agency by Annie Jacobsen. I've put it on top of my reading list. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: DARPA essentially created the Internet ....... In fact, I own a book on DARPA I just dug out of the pile (several, actually, but this is the one I dug out as it is the best): The Pentagon's Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America's Top-Secret Military Research Agency by Annie Jacobsen. "Created" makes a mountain out of a molehill. Didn't Al Gore do that? Since I haven't read the book, I can't comment on it. Anyway, a much shorter read would be the first two articles linked in this blogpost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This could go under the Rigging topic, or the endless Trump thread, and maybe Trump humour, but since the President has some awesome powers in his hands he can direct agencies to investigate an apparent enormous conspiracy to commit electoral fraud. I do expect him to wait a while and not announce what kinds of investigations by which agencies he wants right away. But to obtain an objective, detailed extent of the alleged crimes is what I think the President will seek, if not as priority one. It's good to know it's on his mind. WaPo: At White House, Trump tells congressional leaders 3-5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular votehttps://t.co/V4CtaKhBWN — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 24, 2017 My red hat scrunched down over my eyes and ears, I would say: there is indeed evidence (which the discredited media has failed to report on). The White House will direct appropriate power with scope enough to get to the bottom of the assumed discrepancy. He owes this to the public at large, not just the Red Hats. Prediction: He will name the states where certified results are plausibly tainted by wholesale rigging/electoral and/or voter fraud. He will name names and there will be a judicial cleansing of the affected electoral systems, restoring confidence by the next national voting date. And milk and honey shall flow upon the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Korben quoted Rand from “The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age,” The Romantic Manifesto, 128: If you rebel against reason, if you succumb to the old bromides of the Witch Doctors, such as: “Reason is the enemy of the artist” or “The cold hand of reason dissects and destroys the joyous spontaneity of man’s creative imagination”—I suggest that you take note of the following fact: by rejecting reason and surrendering to the unhampered sway of their unleashed emotions (and whims), the apostles of irrationality, the existentialists, the Zen Buddhists, the non-objective artists, have not achieved a free, joyous, triumphant sense of life, but a sense of doom, nausea and screaming, cosmic terror. Then read the stories of O. Henry or listen to the music of Viennese operettas and remember that these were the products of the spirit of the nineteenth century—a century ruled by the “cold, dissecting” hand of reason. And then ask yourself: which psycho-epistemology is appropriate to man, which is consonant with the facts of reality and with man’s nature? end quote The Theme to “Downton Abbey” is worth listening to. It conveys apprehension and hope together, in a beautiful way. It is haunting to my rational, human mind. It compels me to carry on, emotionally, hoping for the best. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 Peter, thanks for the suggestion, this isn't me playing but I found a piano solo version of the theme and it's wonderful: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The electoral and voting fraud issue is in presidential news today ... 20 hours ago, william.scherk said: I do expect [the President] to wait a while and not announce what kinds of investigations by which agencies he wants right away. But to obtain an objective, detailed extent of the alleged crimes is what I think the President will seek, if not as priority one. From CNN: Quote Trump calls for 'major investigation' into voter fraud By Dan Merica, Eric Bradner and Theodore Schleifer, CNN Updated 9:06 AM ET, Wed January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump called on Wednesday for "a major investigation" into voter fraud, following through with baseless claims he has made since November's election alleging millions of illegal votes during the general election without citing any evidence. "I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and ... even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!" Trump wrote in two consecutive tweets. Trump's comments on voter fraud came Monday during a meeting with congressional leaders, where he reiterated an unsubstantiated claim that 3-5 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. On Tuesday, Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer vigorously defended Trump's statement about illegal voters, though neither Trump nor his surrogates could provide evidence that any substantial illegal voting had occurred or influence the popular vote. Trump faced widespread criticism for his remarks, including from some congressional leaders in his own party, and Democrats have alleged that Republican efforts in the name of fighting voter fraud has the effect of preventing or delaying legal voters who traditionally back Democratic candidates Ohio's secretary of state responded to Trump's Tweet on Wednesday, saying his office already investigated claims of voter fraud. "We conducted a review 4 years ago in Ohio & already have a statewide review of 2016 election underway. Easy to vote, hard to cheat #Ohio," Jon Husted, a Republican, tweeted. Former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie-Wasserman Schultz issued a harsh condemnation of Trump's call for an investigation, telling CNN's "New Day" that the tweet's message was "deeply disturbing." "He seems to be questioning the legitimacy of his own election, all while, for the last couple of months, touting how legitimate and huge his election was and historic it is. It can't be both," she said. "What is the most deeply disturbing about his penchant for lying is -- if he is willing to lie about the trivial, like crowd size, or the significant, like voter fraud, then what happens if -- God forbid -- we go to war and we have our troops lives on the line and there are causalities? Is he going to send Sean Spicer out to lie about the causalities that have taken place? Are our allies going to be able to trust us?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I stopped my work around a little after two to grab some lunch. As I was eating, I decided to look at TV news. On Fox, Shep Smith was grilling someone about how Trump is going to deal with the fact that Mexico says it will not ever, never, under any circumstances, in any manner whatsoever, period!!!, pay for the wall. They will walk out of NAFTA negotiations and everything else. And that means American taxpayers are going to be stuck with this humongous bill for this stupid wall. So whaddya think about that? Huh?!! I thought, Dayaamm!... The guy Shep was talking to (I don't remember who it was) tried to be nice and explained there are many ways to bill Mexico for this, but still... Dayaamm!... Who needs to listen to Shep having his end-of-mid-age crisis? So I cut to Fox Business. The guy there (Gasparino) was smugly saying the DOW may have hit 20,000 today, but it will be a loooooooooooong time before it hits 25. He was quite satisfied with himself. Hell and damnation. Isn't 20,000 a good thing? A milestone, in fact? I looked at CNN. Brooke Baldwin was worried as all get out. Someone I didn't know, but a former high-up in a government security agency, was explaining that nobody knows if torture works for interrogation or not. It's just not a settled issue. Not at all. And he went on and on about nobody knowing for sure. When it looked like she would cry, he said: with that in mind, why risk the downside and unintended consequences of using it? So the US should completely and totally ban anything that looks like it might be torture. Even hint at being torture. With a big sigh of relief, she smiled like the sun just came out. Yeah... no surprise there. The real issue was waterboarding and Trump's comments about it even though they didn't specifically say that in the section I watched. So I thought, well, why not? Let's go whole hog. I switched to MSNBC. The interviewer and interviewee were talking in voice-over on top of B-Roll stock footage of a border wall in Texas. So I don't know who they were. Apparently the interviewee lived on the border, though, because she droned on and on about how the residents along the border don't see a need for a border wall at all. That no violence ever happens, yada yada yada... Click. That was about 3 minutes of TV all total. I just couldn't take any more. So why is this in a conspiracy theory thread? Well, who needs to look for a conspiracy theory when we have the mainstream news to look at on TV? You can get all the conspiracy theory you will ever need to scratch your paranoia itch in about 3 minutes. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Times sure are a-changin', though. Even in Oregon. Listen to the citizens cheering on the police. They're sick of getting to work late because protesters take over downtown roads. For anti-Trumpers, is this grist for the Trump Nazi conspiracy theory mill or what? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You can get all the conspiracy theory you will ever need to scratch your paranoia itch in about 3 minutes. And some folks just scratch and scratch: There are now at least 14 "rogue" Twitter accounts from federal science agencies: https://t.co/WOq4Hc5yd1 pic.twitter.com/BpARmzY0xN — Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Here's Rush Limbaugh today on voter fraud: Why Do Democrats Fear a Voter-Fraud Investigation? Jan 25, 2017 Let's not keep folks in suspense, though (he's responding to a Debbie Wasserman Schultz quote bashing President Trump for wanting to investigate--btw - Rush calls her Ms. Blabbermouth ): Quote Well, you ought to welcome an investigation, then. What is there to fear? If it didn’t happen — and all it’s gonna do is prove Trump to be an insecure ego maniacal, narcissist piece of scum — why don’t you let it happen? In fact, Ms. Blabbermouth, why don’t you Democrats join in the effort and get to the bottom of this and prove that Trump is lying? Prove that Trump is insane! Prove that Trump has got all these security problems. Prove that everything you’re alleging here is true, ’cause it apparently is. Apparently, investigation is pointless. It doesn’t matter whatsoever, and it’s “scary” that you can’t stop it in Congress, but what is there to fear if there is no voter fraud to be found? I would think you would want to have led the investigation yourself! When first Trump ever mentioned this, I would think the Democrat reaction would be, “Let’s investigate,” ’cause it’s apparently gonna be easy to prove that Trump is making it all up, right? Except they want to obstruct it. . . . Let’s examine what their primary fear is. There are two of them, and it’s six of one and half dozen of the other. There is voter fraud. It’s been documented. The Jill Stein recounts! Remember in those investigations, in those recounts, we find in many places there were many more Democrat votes than there were Democrat voters! There were more votes than people in some precincts. In all of those investigations, Trump ended up gaining votes. In some cases, Hillary did, too. But the point is, was are voter fraud, and we’ve never had a deep, deep, deep official look into it. We’ve had journalists like John Fund do good jobs looking into it. So that’s one fear... . . . But the second reason that they might fear an investigation is because they know how they conduct them. (chuckling) When they investigate police departments and find wanton racism, say, in Ferguson or in Baltimore. Who can say otherwise? Here’s an officially sanctioned, Washington investigation. Everybody believes Washington, right? Everybody believes the government. Since the Democrats know how you can phony up results of any investigation you want — how you can phony up unemployment numbers, how you can phony up gross domestic product economic numbers — the Democrats have the know that if Trump wanted to fake the numbers, he could. They have to know because of what they themselves do. It’s sort of projection in reverse. If you use existing systems to put out phony survey results and phony polling data and phony investigation results in order to advance your cause, might you also believe the Republicans would do the same thing? So they’re sitting there… Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz is afraid of two things: The real evidence of voter fraud being uncovered or the fact that the Republicans might give the Democrats a dose of their own medicine and make it up, like the Democrats do. There's that. Then there's that 3 million voters thing that the media is pounding. According to Rush, the media itself came up with that number, not Trump. (It was in the question a reporter asked Sean Spicer.) However, he was not done. He ended thus and it's real, real cute: Quote You remember this Washington Post story that I mentioned to you a little while ago from back in 2014 that had research from three different scientists suggesting that in the 2014 midterms, there could have been anywhere from 38,000 illegal votes to 2.8 million illegal votes, from three scientists. Now, guess what? If you go to that Washington Post story right now, you’re going to find that they have some “updates” to it. The Washington Post updates to their story from 2014 basically say that the information from the sources, the three scientists, has been debunked and that these guys are now considered to be full of excrement. But the Post ran the story with full credit and full credibility back in October of 2014, when everybody was afraid that the Republicans were gonna win the Senate, and if that happened, they wanted to establish that it might have been phony votes. The Democrats did it. The Democrats, the Washington Post ran the story. Now that Trump is talking about it, the Washington Post has gone back to their website with a little addendum to that story from three years ago which essentially says (summarized), “You know this story we ran three years ago? It’s full of it, and these guys that were our sources, they’ve been exposed as frauds.” I mean that’s not those words, but it’s pretty much how the Post is attempting to say that that story back then was meaningless then, we’re sorry we ran it, and it doesn’t mean anything now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 btw - During the election, I recall saying that Trump was going to do an investigation of voter fraud if he won and I recall being lectured and mocked for saying that. I also recall saying this after he won and recall further being lectured and mocked. Now Trump has won, has taken office, and is calling for an investigation into voter fraud. And I'm in one hell of a pickle. I'm a good guy at heart. I'm not a fan of humiliating others. But I've also had to put up with a lot of shit. So do I mock or not mock? Ah me... Questions questions... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Then there's that 3 million voters thing that the media is pounding. According to Rush, the media itself came up with that number, not Trump. (It was in the question a reporter asked Sean Spicer.) This Foxnews report is saying the 2014 study didn't do well in peer review: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Truncquote! 12 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: 12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: According to Rush This Foxnews report is saying Here's some mainstreaming of the issue ... transcript from an interview in the White House Quote DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that? PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting. DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ... (OVERTALK) DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you -- it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it -- somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly even discussed. I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York where I didn't campaign at all. I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign. So, but ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote, much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one. I went to M-- I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a look at those registration for -- you're gonna s-- find -- and we're gonna do an investigation on it. DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes? PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely. DAVID MUIR: But ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out. (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell--" He said, "You know we don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration. You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ... DAVID MUIR: But again ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ... DAVID MUIR: You’re now, you’re now president of the United States when you say ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate. DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ... DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that -- when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election. PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure. DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation. PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done. DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ... (OVERTALK) DAVID MUIR: ... false. PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports. DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ... (OVERTALK) DAVID MUIR: ... fraud. PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report? DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud. PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report? (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's -- then he's groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear. DAVID MUIR: So, you’ve launched an investigation? PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time -- and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states -- we have a lot to look into. DAVID MUIR: House Speaker Paul Ryan has said, "I have seen no evidence. I have made this very, very clear." Senator Lindsey Graham saying, "It's the most inappropriate thing for a president to say without proof. He seems obsessed with the idea that he could not have possibly lost the popular vote without cheating and fraud." I wanna ask you about something bigger here. Does it matter more now ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's nothing bigger. There's nothing bigger. DAVID MUIR: But it is important because ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you know what's important, millions of people agree with me when I say that if you would’ve looked on one of the other networks and all of the people that were calling in they're saying, "We agree with Mr. Trump. We agree." They're very smart people. The people that voted for me -- lots of people are saying they saw things happen. I heard stories also. But you're not talking about millions. But it's a small little segment. I will tell you, it's a good thing that we're doing because at the end we're gonna have an idea as to what's going on. Now, you're telling me Pew report has all of a sudden changed. But you have other reports and you have other statements. You take a look at the registrations, how many dead people are there? Take a look at the registrations as to the other things that I already presented. DAVID MUIR: And you're saying ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: And you're gonna find ... DAVID MUIR: ... those people who are on the rolls voted, that there are millions of illegal votes? PRESIDENT TRUMP: I didn't say there are millions. But I think there could very well be millions of people. That's right. DAVID MUIR: You tweeted though ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I also say this ... DAVID MUIR: ... you tweeted, "If you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally, I won the popular vote." PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, and I also say this, if I was going for the popular vote I would've won easily. But I would've been in California and New York. I wouldn't have been in Maine. I wouldn't have been in Iowa. I wouldn't have been in Nebraska and all of those states that I had to win in order to win this. I would've been in New York, I would've been in California. I never even went there. DAVID MUIR: Let me just ask you, you did win. You're the president. You're sitting ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s true. DAVID MUIR: ... across from me right now. PRESIDENT TRUMP: That's true. DAVID MUIR: Do you think that your words matter more now? PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, very much. DAVID MUIR: Do you think that that talking about millions of illegal votes is dangerous to this country without presenting the evidence? PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all. (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not at all because many people feel the same way that I do. And ... DAVID MUIR: You don't think it undermines your credibility if there’s no evidence? (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all because they didn't come to me. Believe me. Those were Hillary votes. And if you look at it they all voted for Hillary. They all voted for Hillary. They didn't vote for me. I don't believe I got one. Okay, these are people that voted for Hillary Clinton. And if they didn't vote, it would've been different in the popular. Now, you have to understand I -- I focused on those four or five states that I had to win. Maybe she didn't. She should've gone to Michigan. She thought she had it in the bag. She should've gone to Wisconsin, she thought she had it because you're talking about 38 years of, you know, Democrat wins. But they didn't. I went to Michigan, I went to Wisconsin. I went to Pennsylvania all the time. I went to all of the states that are -- Florida and North Carolina. That's all I focused on. DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, it does strike me though that we're relitigating the presidential campaign, the election ... (OVERTALK) PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no. We're looking at it for the next time. No, no, you have to understand, I had a tremendous victory, one of the great victories ever. In terms of counties I think the most ever or just about the most ever. When you look at a map it's all red. Red meaning us, Republicans. One of the greatest victories ever. But, again, I ran for the electoral college. I didn't run for the popular vote. What I'm saying is if there are these problems that many people agree with me that there might be. Look, Barack Obama -- if you look back -- eight years ago when he first ran -- he was running for office in Chicago for we needed Chicago vote. And he was laughing at the system because he knew all of those votes were going to him. You look at Philadelphia, you look at what's going on in Philadelphia. But take a look at the tape of Barack Obama who wrote me, by the way, a very beautiful letter in the drawer of the desk. Very beautiful. And I appreciate it. But look at what he said, it's on tape. Look at what he said about voting in Chicago eight years ago. It's not changed. It hasn't changed, believe me. Chicago, look what's going on in Chicago. It's only gotten worse. But he was smiling and laughing about the vote in Chicago. Now, once he became president he didn't do that. All of a sudden it became this is the foundation of our country. So, here's the point, you have a lot of stuff going on possibly. I say probably. But possibly. We're gonna get to the bottom of it. And then we're gonna make sure it doesn't happen again. If people are registered wrongly, if illegals are registered to vote, which they are, if dead people are registered to vote and voting, which they do. There are some. I don't know how many. We're gonna try finding that out and the other categories that we talk about, double states where they're -- registered in two states, we're gonna get to the bottom of it because we have to stop it. Because I agree, so important. But the other side is trying to downplay this. Now, I'll say this -- I think that if that didn't happen, first of all, would -- would be a great thing if it didn't happen. But I believe it did happen. And I believe a part of the vote would've been much different. DAVID MUIR: And you believe millions of illegal votes ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you this ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna find out. And -- and, by the way, when I say you're gonna find out. You can never really find, you know, there are gonna be -- no matter what numbers we come up with there are gonna be lots of people that did things that we're not going to find out about. But we will find out because we need a better system where that can't happen. -- There is some real confusion here about a "Pew guy" and his study. There was a peer-reviewed study of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) — it purported to analyze the data and concluded that up to 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote. Not a Pew study, 'grovelling' notwithstanding. Details on request, but that should probably be answered in the Rigging Thread. On 1/24/2017 at 11:09 AM, william.scherk said: My red hat scrunched down over my eyes and ears, I would say: there is indeed evidence (which the discredited media has failed to report on). The White House will direct appropriate power with scope enough to get to the bottom of the assumed discrepancy. He owes this to the public at large, not just the Red Hats. Prediction: He will name the states where certified results are plausibly tainted by wholesale rigging/electoral and/or voter fraud. He will name names and there will be a judicial cleansing of the affected electoral systems, restoring confidence by the next national voting date. Oddly enough for our understanding that the media leaders are hopelessly corrupt and/or biased and/or founts of misinformation, it was the Washington Post that initially publicized the CCES-derived study -- gave it play. Grovel grovel. That same fount of discredited nonsense, the Washington Post, gives a "critical reading" an interpretive dance of the interview given to ABC -- with annotations via Genius: Donald Trump’s stunning first major interview as president, annotated -- WaPo unearthed a tweet from the Pew Guy: We found millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying, but found no evidence that voter fraud resulted. — David Becker (@beckerdavidj) November 28, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 For those interested in climate change conspiracy theories: Have fun... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 From the Telegraph yesterday: Mystery death of ex-KGB chief linked to MI6 spy's dossier on Donald Trump Quote Robert Mendick, chief reporter Robert Verkaik 27 JANUARY 2017 • 9:30PM An ex-KGB chief suspected of helping the former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile his dossier on Donald Trump may have been murdered by the Kremlin and his death covered up. it has been claimed. Oleg Erovinkin, a former general in the KGB and its successor the FSB, was found dead in the back of his car in Moscow on Boxing Day in mysterious circumstances. Erovinkin was a key aide to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime minister and now head of Rosneft, the state-owned oil company, who is repeatedly named in the dossier. Erovinkin has been described as a key liaison between Sechin and Russian president Vladimir Putin. Mr Steele writes in an intelligence report dated July 19, 2016, he has a source close to Sechin, who had disclosed alleged links between Mr Trump’s supporters and Moscow. The death of Erovinkin has prompted speculation it is linked to Mr Steele’s explosive dossier, which was made public earlier this month. Mr Trump has dismissed the dossier as “fake news” and no evidence has emerged to support its lurid claims. The Russian state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported Erovinkin’s body was “found in a black Lexus... [and] a large-scale investigation has been commenced in the area. Erovinkin’s body was sent to the FSB morgue”. No cause of death has been confirmed and the FSB continues to investigate. Media reports suggested his death was a result of foul play. It was later claimed he died of a heart attack. [...] Heart attack! From the Gateway Pundit, GOP Philly Meetings Bugged – Mole Sends Recordings to Liberal News Outlets Quote Jim Hoft Jan 27th, 2017 1:59 pm But it gets worse. Their room is bugged. Someone was taping the GOP lawmakers’ discussions and sent copies to the liberal media. The Washington Post reported: Republican lawmakers aired sharp concerns about their party’s quick push to repeal the Affordable Care Act inside a closed-door meeting Thursday, according to a recording of the session obtained by The Washington Post. The recording reveals a GOP that appears to be filled with doubts about how to make good on a long-standing promise to get rid of Obamacare without explicit guidance from President Trump or his administration. Senators and House members expressed a range of concerns about the task ahead: how to prepare a replacement plan that can be ready to launch at the time of repeal; how to avoid deep damage to the health insurance market; how to keep premiums affordable for middle-class families; even how to avoid the political consequences of defunding Planned Parenthood, the women’s health-care organization, as many Republicans hope to do with the repeal of the ACA. “We’d better be sure that we’re prepared to live with the market we’ve created” with repeal, said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). “That’s going to be called Trumpcare. Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we’ll be judged in the election less than two years away.” Recordings of closed sessions at the Republican policy retreat in Philadelphia this week were sent late Thursday to The Washington Post and several other news outlets from an anonymous email address. The remarks of all lawmakers quoted in this story were confirmed by their offices or by the lawmakers themselves. Moles! -- from McClatchy, via the Sacramento Bee, Russians may have arrested a source in U.S. probe of election meddling Quote BY TIM JOHNSON tjohnson@mcclatchydc.com With mystery surrounding the recent arrests in Moscow of several high-level Russian cybersecurity figures, speculation mounted Friday that one of the men may have been an informant who provided crucial information to the United States about Russian meddling in the U.S. election campaign. The speculation came from two former employees of the National Security Agency, which intercepts, deciphers and analyzes the world’s electronic communications. News of the arrests filtered out in reports beginning Wednesday and it has shaken the insular world of cybersecurity, espionage and cybercrime. Among those arrested for suspected treason was Sergei Mikhailov, deputy chief of the cyber intelligence department of the FSB, Russia’s main security agency. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta said Mikhailov had been detained in December, and led away with a sack over his head from FSB headquarters in Moscow. Also arrested were a second FSB officer, Maj. Dmitry Dokuchayev, according to REN-TV, and Ruslan Stoyanov, a cybersecurity manager of Kaspersky Lab, a well-known cybersecurity firm. Stoyanov was in charge of the firm’s computer incidents investigations team. The company said Stoyanov was under investigation for activities before he was hired in 2012. Dave Aitel, a former NSA research scientist who founded Immunity Inc., a firm based in Miami Beach that offers offensive measures for cybersecurity protection, said the Russian probe into the men likely had started long ago and its beginnings likely were unrelated to U.S. election hacking. “When I talk to the guys over at Kaspersky and the Russians who are following this sort of thing, they point out very clearly that you don’t arrest a high-ranking FSB officer in, like, three days, the same way you wouldn’t arrest a high-ranking CIA officer in three days, no matter what evidence you have,” Aitel said. The FSB is entrusted with certifying software to be used in Russia, and obtaining such licenses can involve corruption, especially for foreign firms wanting a foothold in Russia. “This could be purely about corruption, is what the Russians are telling me, corruption that could weaken Russian national security, but corruption nonetheless,” Aitel said. But Aitel and John R. Schindler, a former senior NSA executive who has been tweeting about the case, suggested that the arrest of Mikhailov may have a link to U.S. charges of Russian meddling in the U.S. election campaign, outlined in Dec. 29 and Jan. 6 unclassified public reports. Those dubbed the alleged Russian interference campaign as Grizzly Steppe. Was Mikhailov a high-level informant for U.S. intelligence or that of an allied power? Aitel said he thought it possible, and if so that would amount to a “humongous loss.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Have no fear, William! WikiLeaks to the rescue! It seems like Steele (the author of the Golden Showers Gate report) was a total con--a former legit spy who worked in Moscow for a couple of years in the 90's, but whose cover was blown. (In face, he hasn't been able to enter Russia since 2006.) After being blown, nobody who was anybody in the hardcore intelligence world would touch him with a ten-foot pole. They were afraid of what is called "contamination," meaning anything they were doing would be blown, too, since Russia would obviously keep tabs on him. Partisans and toadies wouldn't mind having something to do with him, though, especially during the election. That's because he made up good-sounding anti-Trump shit and knew how to drop names. Read the article. If you want some hardcore spook facts, there is a lot in it to digest. It is quite illuminating and makes the Clinton folks look like idiots. However--and this is cutsie-tootsie--on first blush, it looks like the contrary because of a toxic-looking cartoon right under the headline. I wonder if that cartoon is bait to get Clinton supporter to read the article and realize how stupid or misled they have been. Hmmmmm... Here's the cartoon: In other words, the Russians may be doing dastardly things to some of the people involved, but not for spook-business. If true, it's probably for poor taste and amateurism. People like that in the the Russian government are embarrassing... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Here's a conspiracy theory for ya'. It's called bombing Muslim countries. Jimmy Dore below has a point, although I don't agree with everything he says. At the start of the video, he commented that nowadays lots of people are having a cow over not letting folks from certain Muslim countries into the US, but the US bombing the shit out of those countries seems to be fine. Hellooooo Obama... How's that for selective outrage? Or is it a conspiracy? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Ahh... Pizzagate.... Too bad they focused mostly on Sandusky, Hastert, Catholic Church, Weiner, etc. But there's some Pizzagate in there just to keep it down and dirty... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Here's a little bit more with Alex and Joe Rogan. This video is interesting not just for showing how Megyn Kelly doctored a report to make the false look like the truth, but also there is a long section of footage from the late 1990's that looks like it could have been taken at the Berkeley riot at Milo's event the other day. Same kinds of dudes in black trashing buildings, pepper spraying folks, the police looking on, etc. It's kinda creepy to see that. btw - Joe at the end said Alex was a normal person... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now