MSM doesn’t give Trump enough credit, he is killing Clinton with his extremely clever messages. In one twitter phrase, he promised he wasn’t taking cocaine, as alleged after the last debate, and put the spotlight back on her health. Trump is a lot cannier than anyone gives him credit for, he thinks entirely outside the standard mindset box :
This is a profound thought, imho, that a ‘secrecy tax’ means no organization can be both secret and efficient/effective enough to compete with more open groups :
Glen Greenwald, a genuine reporter. The reason Wikileaks is important and should be reported upon :
Progressives without working class support is an interesting concept, but doesn’t quite work in practice :
Every day, it seems to me that the very Progressive web site NakedCapitalism is more pro-Trump and anti-Clinton in articles they link to and comments they post. WRT banking and money regulations, NakedCapitalism is excellent. They are solidly pro-rule-of-law and peace, and that makes them anti-Clinton and anti-MSM and anti-Status Quo. Pretty much like all the comments on ZeroHedge.
This is participatory journalism. Major web sites put up links to the wikileaks email releases, and citizens read through and comment on what they find interesting. Then zerohedge editors check those out, and do the next story based on the best, and people fill that out with more comments containing links in the email. Read the comments, lots and lots of dirt, including suggestions of a contract for a hit on Scalia! There are a lot of hot buttons in all that, things that will outrage another segment of the voters.
I expect counters, e.g. posting stories claiming false things and then disproving them. The Ds best strategy is to make everyone so sick of the claims and counter-claims that everyone stops listening. Such a multi-dimensional race !! The decline of trust in everyone in the Status Quo vs rising trust in independent media, our human love of insider gossip (the only reason to have a royal house, and the major reason for Hollywood) vs boredom-disgust with the entire topic.
The comments have a good discussion about how to play Trump’s hand, his messaging in the final weeks, etc. If his campaign staff is awake, the election is in the bag. A smart campaign team would be taking much of its thinking from discussions on websites like Zerohedge, Hillary’s clearly is not, cannot do that, they are a besieged group at this point, with criminal indictments facing them should Trump win.
3 weeks to the election, wikileaks is doing about 1000 emails a day. So far, every release has contained at least one new indication of criminal activities surrounding the Clintons. There aren’t enough possible horrors that Donald Trump could have done to distract enough voters from all of them, and the fake stories the MSM are posting to distract are being shown to be fake. Just like the false flags and faux massacres guided by the FBI and CIA, they are losing their effects in guiding political opinion.
Again, and by a different line of reasoning, I conclude that Clinton is going to lose :
Faux outrage, the FBI covers up crimes continuously, especially their own, e.g. the Trenadeux affair :
The following 4chan exchange came up again. I hate this kind of thing, ‘anonymous’ claiming to be someone with insider info, leaking it. In this case, someone claiming to be an FBI agent working on the Clinton email case. Can’t even for sure judge because some of the info was advanced wrt what was publically known at the time, that is an easy way to validate an insider’s self-serving version of story. At the same time, enough of them are real you have to take them seriously. At the same time, the language is more theatrical/media-speak than I would expect from an FBI agent. And Orlando was a hoax, not a massacre, he should have known that. All of the FBI’s muslim terrorist cases were leading confidential informants through stupid stuff they get arrested for, that must be common knowledge, and they must grasp Sandy Hook, etc. Thus suspect everything. Unless he labels those as ‘insider jobs’, very misleading. Reading further, he does. He means ‘inside the government did it’. That in itself is confirming.
Could be my expectation of FBI agents is wrong, of course, some of it strikes me as very plausible. But not his reasons for not emulating Snowden. If an FBI agent has access to evidence for large-scale treason within the federal government, there is no possible understanding of the Constitution that would allow you to NOT BE A SNOWDEN. His reasons for not leaking information in more detail, all at once, don’t make sense.
I believe that is the state of our union, however. Nothing works because government has become a massive skim operation, offices are for sale, the emails are more than indirect evidence of that. Scandals into the far future.
This is the 3rd time I have read it. I want to believe it, don’t see anything checkable enough to make me believe it. I could have written it, I think, from what I knew or could easily extrapolate back in July 2016. I would have had to extrapolate that last bit, the pedophilia connection, maybe could have.
Thus, it is pro-FBI propaganda, a PR attempt to protect the institution more than an insider protesting the leadership’s decisions. It sort-of confirms a lot of things that are already known, thus gains validity in the reader’s mind, but doesn’t release enough really new info to have any major political effect, and does it in a way that maximizes the tin-foil-hat aspects to diminish any political impact it might have. Far more masterful from that pov than what it wants us to believe. Can’t be too paranoid on a thing like this, really, their propagandists are pros.
Seriously, if anyone with any broad knowledge inside the CIA or FBI or military or DEA or FED or … wanted to get their knowledge of wide-spread corruption including Treason, special favors including sex with children, into the public’s understanding, they wouldn’t use 4chan, whether or no the claim that the FBI likes 4chan/pol/ is true. There are far more legitimate completely anti-status quo outlets in the world than 4chan, and everyone is equally easy to communicate with, Snowden’s continuing revelations (tho none of late, I just noticed) show there are still some media elements not corrupted by the CIA, I am confident that any person among them can set up enough accounts and use the tools to email any gd thing he wants to anyone he wants, and be completely anonymous about it. The big problem would be getting files that are not tagged to identify them as the ones you accessed on a certain date, embedded in the files meta-info it takes a specialist to remove, included in paper copies. Except for that part, I am pretty sure I could, even with the limited resources I have available.
The only way this is plausible is if the FBI is hiring dummies who also blab canny versions of insider secrets on 4chan. Really, a conversation on 4chan isn’t plausible, the guy wasn’t drunk enough for that :
This captures the mood of the message we are sending via Trump. More pungent words :
Donald Trump will win this election by a large margin, a landslide :
This is positive, optimistic, and, I think, True. It makes you wonder about the recent riots, how much somebody wanted and needed them, somebody with the clout to make them happen, both police and rioters. It would be a straightforward extension of the Sandy Hook hoax class of generating news for political impact :
And the most interested people go to work on the Podestra files :
All of the considerations this author cites for media vs Sanders applies far more for media vs Trump. Class is the base issue, more than policies or anything else. They defined what is legitimate in politics to exclude Sanders, of course Trump is worse than that. This is a detailed investigation of the Washington Post’s stories on Sanders, good work :
This will boggle any mind, and it took me a while to remember my previous encounters with this monthly Harper’s feature. It did boggle my mind, first time I encountered it, such a different way of transmitting information.
Fun to read, if you have a certain kind of mind, e.g. this caught my eye “Ominous background music worsens humans’ attitudes toward sharks.”, some social scientist checking to be sure the obvious was :
I interpret it as a list of things to search for on the net. Using duckduckgo.com and one of them, I found this :
Certainly you will find facts you would never encounter in any other way if you did that systematically, and it is less directing to particular sources than my approach here, perhaps a superior approach.
This piece is about things in Facebook’s news that are false. It calls an article claiming the Sept 11 attacks were controlled demolition ‘false’, false in itself, as indeed 9-11 was a controlled demolition destruction of all 3 towers. It couldn’t have been the airplanes, and no airplane hit Building 7, it wasn’t even much damaged, small fires on a couple of floors.
Humans have meteorologists 100 years. We have had science with the ability to estimate temperature and a few other variables for the past few million years about 30 years. We have understood the timing of ice ages for maybe 50 years. We have had growing understanding of atmospheric chemistry and its many interactions with biology for maybe 30 years. Those lines of research are far from complete. The models of climate therefore are incomplete, merely the third fundamental reason the models predict nothing but how the models work that month, the latest version using the best estimates of what is known. Validate against the ‘known’ record is no help, the known record is too few cycles of the longest cycles to predict anything. So the entire ‘global warming’ argument is word play. Of course the climate changes. But the idea that humans are doing anything assumes we could know what it would be without us, and grasp what to do to reduce our effects. We don’t, and can’t, given the existing data.
There are far better arguments that humans should stop being destructive of the environment, reasons to invoke the precautionary principle. Climate change is one of least important. Based on the latest data, it seems more likely we are entering a cold period, glaciers, deserts and lower sea levels, not heat, tropical forest at temperate latitudes and higher seas.
All that is perfectly compatible with Hurricane Mathew having unprecedented characteristics. For all we know, this is characteristic of an El Nino cycle ending just before an ice age. ‘Un-precedented characteristics’ means we haven’t seen this part of any weather-climate cycle before, and any analysis of ’cause’ must be mostly hypothesis based on what we knew before and assuming that explains this new event. Hypothesis.
I think I included this one before, but I hadn’t closed it, my usual signal to myself :
Very bad optics is built in to any Clinton win. We cannot trust anything about the coming election, they keep faking poll results via the people polled, suspicious in itself. Our Status Quo has organized itself to be distrusted by the rest of us :
This is the usual status quo, MSM bs, blaming the opposition for a conspiracy view of life, when the votes are being stolen, and obviously so. The end-point of this idiocy is a bloody revolution, and they are already blaming it on the bitter-enders :
Hasn’t oil been at its bottom price lately? The real reason is there are now only 4 major airlines, after the consolidations enabled by low interest rates :
Yes, no kidding, any out-of-the-mainstream view gets you banned from the propaganda apparatus of MSM :
Could be, and could also be more FBI setups of slow thinkers :
Gee, people don’t trust our MSM or Status Quo. Wonder why? :
7 people interviewed is slack, much too small a sample. My relatives must be more discriminating, they almost all support Trump, the exceptions being the younger still upwardly mobile couples, but none of them like having to do so. In varying degrees of complexity in the discussions, most view him as a terrible vessel for their message of complete disgust with our ruling elites and their very dumb policies about everything, but they have no choices, so Trump it is :
538 validates its models by the latest polls. But, the models can’t be better than the polls, and the polls are all over the map, literally :
The emails fiasco is serious when reuters is forced to mention the possibility of an ‘ethics breach’ by Clinton :
OK, so how much sense does it make that local races are diverging from the Presidential race, and Hillary Clinton is drawing away from the local Democrats? This is all reasoning from polls, and major organizations changed their samples just for this part of this election, so the election is the first test of their new technology. 538 can’t be any more accurate than those polls.
Someplace earlier today I saw the usual “why the many reasons not to believe the polls are wrong”, will post it when I see it again. Yes, our brains are good at seeing confirming evidence. Also good at seeing cracks in a facade and connections between events. All hypotheses, and reality is the answer, often in the future. Just like always, his arguments are hypotheses also. How do they weigh the people they don’t sample because they hang up on pollsters? I can’t be the only one. What is the rate of that this election vs prior elections? If everything else was the same and people act like before, the polls are right :
This is part of that story on the polling and polls :
Too bad about The Guardian, I once had some respect for the organization. After all, it was where Glen Greenwald was working when Snowden asked him to help. There is NO evidence of Russian involvement in any of this, it is more attack the messenger, even when you need to make things up. Pitiful excuse for a reporter and editor who selected this :
Surveillance works both ways, the elites are finding :
This kind of stuff only works because there is no context. Real reporters would oppose it by providing the context that allowed judging each new article. But that is too much work, even in an age of links, so people like Wey can win due to the lackadasical slackness of reporters and editors :
‘Road to precision medicine’ is vast hyperbole. Indeed, all genomes are not sampled well, but nobody should hold their breath waiting for precision medicine. At best, we will have info for a few cancers about what drugs are most effective, but that will rapidly be obsoleted by the contrary thinking of control of control systems instead of metabolic poisons. Shorter-term, the real loss is the better understanding of genomic diversity and thus more understanding of our total genetic potential. Selective breeding is what we do, each of us, our own lineage’s long-term selective breeding programs, and we don’t know enough about the potential bloodlines and their attributes to make good decisions yet. There is no single genetically superior group, but there are individuals with superior attributes who might bring them to my grandchildren :
Such a bad time to have your assets in any financial instruments, because putting 20% of a fund’s assets into a single play is insane, however they hedge it :