Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[quote author= meta-agnostic]and I would probably vote for Stein if I was there anyway but I don't see much reason to get excited about her. I'm still not convinced she's not some sort of controlled opposition on some level.[/quote]

Nothing so far points out that she is controlled opposition. What keeps you in doubt?

I would vote for her, if only symbolic.

Media Polling Fully Exposed – About That NBC/WSJ Clinton +11 Point Poll….

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/11/media-polling-fully-exposed-about-that-nbcwsj-clinton-11-point-poll/

The Real Battle, is The Battle For Your Mind

Researchers and political analysts frequent CTH because we bring you hard, factual, and fully cited research enabling you to make up your own mind about the headlines.

What you are about to read (and see) below is a fully cited example of something we have discussed frequently, but withheld until today, so the oppositional forces cannot change strategies in their attempts to manipulate your mind.

It is now time to lay all media polling naked for you to grasp. Everything below is fully cited so you can fact-check it for yourself. However, we present this with a disclaimer: the entities exposed will industriously work to change their approach from this day forth.

You have probably seen the latest example of the media claiming a released presidential poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal as an example of Hillary Clinton expanding to an 11 point lead in the weekend following the “controversial” leaked tape of Donald Trump.

The claim is complete and utter nonsense. Here’s the proof.

We begin with a google search showing hundreds of media citations referencing the NBC/WSJ Poll. And here’s the NBC link to the poll, and the NBC Link to the pdf of the poll, and the NBC Poll itself in a scribed pdf:

Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the following ideological make-up:



♦ Republican and Republican leaners 36%
♦ Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
♦ Independents 12%

By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is roughly 27% (R), 32% (D), and 40% (I) – SEE HERE – However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.

Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people do when they are refuting a media poll. That aspect alone is not the big story.

Look at the polling organization:



Do you see: Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?

Hart Research Associates is headed up by Peter D Hart (founder), and Geoff Garin (President)

Now look at what role Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associate President, is currently occupying (link here):



OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates”, is currently working as “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“. Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?

See the issue?

Wait, we’re not even close to finished. It gets better.

Let’s take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associates and Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC.

For that information we turn to FEC filings. What do they indicate?



On Page #118 of the September 2016 (most recent) filing we find a payment for $178,500 (screen grab above)

On Page #92 of the same September 2016 (most recent) filing, we find another payment for $42,000 (screen grab below)



♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

♦ Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.

Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?

bjorn said:

[quote author= meta-agnostic]and I would probably vote for Stein if I was there anyway but I don't see much reason to get excited about her. I'm still not convinced she's not some sort of controlled opposition on some level.

Click to expand...

Nothing so far points out that she is controlled opposition. What keeps you in doubt?

I would vote for her, if only symbolic.
[/quote]

She has the whole "professional candidate" thing going on, to keep showing up year after year and say enough of the right things to raise her profile to a certain crowd but has only briefly been elected to a local office. She seems to know how to walk the line between alternative credibility and mainstream acceptance somewhat, but at this point if she presented herself better shouldn't she be able to poll better than Gary Johnson? If those polls are even real, I know. Maybe she is sincere, and TPTB just know she is not enough of a threat to take seriously so they let her do her thing. Maybe it matters on some level, but is it worth signing up for a whole other level of the system and legitimizing it(often entailing getting phone calls, direct mail, and just generally having a higher profile and being pestered more by pathocratic forces) just to give Stein a very slight bump toward maybe a few percentage points? Like I said, if I was going to be there anyway I'd check her box but I'm not sure she's worth the whole ordeal by herself. Although I'm aware circumstances could change between now and election day, and in my case a part of the decision has to be made within the next day.

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

AL Today said:

What busts my chops is that this looks like watching a daytime soap opera. Drama. As important an event this presidential election represents, is this garbage truly representative of the population here? Are we supposed to be informed or merely entertained by comedic distraction? Evidently not enough people perceive the terror of the situation. Bums me out...

Click to expand...

That remark is spot-on! It's what keeps running through my mind. This Presidential election is being treated like a drama-comedy act. In the real World, try showing up for any job interview, even Micky-D's exhibiting these kind of mannerisms and see how fast your shown the exit door! We're faced with some really hard realities in our daily lives, and none of these issues have been addressed in a reasonable and comprehensive way. Not only domestic but we might be facing the direct effects of a full blown War in the Middle East. How does Bill's escapades (past tense) in the White House, address the fact that average incomes per household have been locked into 1996 quota's ... while utilities, gas and food prices have sky rocketed? What programs are on the drawing board to bring jobs and employment back, that was out sourced to other Countries? What about the healthcare mess that ObamaCare created? And little local concerns like, "Why is the Nestle Corporation allowed to tap into our Municipal Reservoir and extract millions of gallons of water a month, at a flat rate of $250 per month BUT my water bill is based on my Sewer usage - which results in duplicate billing each month." So, do I need to extend my practice of separating cans/plastics from household garage and add another can - marked BATHROOM - just to help make ends meet?

Another thought crossed my mind - What if this Presidential election was "meant" and planned to be a complete farce, with the intent of some type of false flag to keep O in office? Some how, I can't picture the White House with a large TRUMP neon sign affixed to it or the Oval Office - turned into an Intensive Care Unit? We are really in sad shape, as a people and a Nation and it's no laughing matter.

[quote author= meta-agnostic]She has the whole "professional candidate" thing going on, to keep showing up year after year and say enough of the right things to raise her profile to a certain crowd but has only briefly been elected to a local office[/quote]

So you don't trust her because she act professional?

If she is that sleak and ambitious you suspect her of. She would had certainly accepted corporate sponsors, got in 2 party system. And harnessed a lot of money and power.

She could have done that, since she presents herself very well. But she didn't do that.

I don't see anything wrong with someone who acts professional.

What should she do to make herself trustworthy to you. Act less professional? Show more anger? Curse a bit? You tell me.


[quote author= meta-agnostic]but at this point if she presented herself better shouldn't she be able to poll better than Gary Johnson? If those polls are even real, I know.[/quote]

She is saying a lot of the right things, contrary to the other candidates So it is either the polls, or the public who is at fault. I think it's both.


[quote author= meta-agnostic]just to give Stein a very slight bump toward maybe a few percentage points? [/quote]

It's isn't just about the vote. It's about to what you give your energy to. It counts to what you align yourself to. What kind of message you are sending to the Universe.

Besides, how many people out there are thinking. ''Why should I vote Jill Stein if she wouldn't get enough votes anyway'' It's thinking like this that costs her percentages.

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

bjorn said:

[...]
It wasn't all that bad; Trump not being controlled opposition makes it differ from any normal routine. He accused Bill Clinton of Pedophilia and named him a rapist. Talked about working together with Russia, and told the public that he would send Hillary to jail if he won.
[...]

AL Today said:

What busts my chops is that this looks like watching a daytime soap opera. Drama. As important an event this presidential election represents, is this garbage truly representative of the population here? Are we supposed to be informed or merely entertained by comedic distraction?

Click to expand...

Things I mentioned weren't for comedic distraction. [...]

Click to expand...

My comments were not pointed at your comments bjorn. I apologize it they seemed that way. I was talking about this spectacle called an election debate.

bjorn said:

[...]
If you can't see the joy in little things such as that than what joy is out there. Chance doesn't happen overnight. It happens through a set of failures such as those mentioned.
[...]

Click to expand...

There are many things that provide joy but methinks this presdidential election is not one of those. There is nothing that can provide me joy with this situation.

bjorn said:

[quote author= AL]Evidently not enough people perceive the terror of the situation. Bums me out...

Click to expand...

Both candidates aren't popular at all with the American people. So I suppose many see the terror of the situation.
[...]
[/quote]

Many see the TRUE gravity and terror of t he situation? I just can't assume that and this is my main concern. If enough people had their eyes wide open, I doubt if we'd be in this situation.

edit: clarity

Sorry, I should have defined what I was talking about better. Maybe I meant perennial candidate. I didn't mean that she acts too professional, I mean it as in although she is technically a physician by profession, her job lately is to just keep being a candidate over and over while not actually getting elected to office. There have been several in the US over the years and I'm sure in other countries, and they may represent some respectable positions but their role in the system seems to be to give people somewhere to put their energy that will never amount to anything. Not that voting for one of these candidates is a bad idea, but if the energy put into their campaigns was focused on ponerogenic issues that transcended the electoral realm it might have a much greater effect. I hope Jill Stein does well in this election. I might even be willing to hope she "pulls" enough votes away from Hillary in order to get Trump elected, as far as that stupid narrative goes. But the whole process does seem to be one big energy suck, with a very narrow set of already-defined outcomes allowed.

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Pashalis said:

She says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html?_r=0 said:

So I believe that this election has become in part so — so conflict-oriented, so intense because there’s a lot at stake. This is not an ordinary time, and this is not an ordinary election. We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world, from the Supreme Court to energy and so much else, and so there is a lot at stake. It’s one of the most consequential elections that we’ve had.

And that’s why I’ve tried to put forth specific policies and plans, trying to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is I want to do as president. And that’s why I hope people will check on that for themselves so that they can see that, yes, I’ve spent 30 years, actually maybe a little more, working to help kids and families. And I want to take all that experience to the White House and do that every single day.

Click to expand...

What did she just say there, at the end of the debate? She says that this time is different and that the new president will set the policy not just for 4 or 8 years!? What? What does she mean by that and what does she know from her PTB handlers, that would let her make such a statement?
What do they plan, or know, to make something like that happen?

Did she just blurb something out nobody is supposed to know at this stage? The agenda of the PTB?

Normal procedure is that after 4 years of presidency, there is another (s)election, in which the new president is voted for. The normal term of a president is 4 years, after that it can be expanded by another (s)election for another 4 years. So what does she know that makes her say/know that this president will already set the policy for the next 8 years and beyond? What is up with that?

Sounds to me that she said something there, that she wasn't supposed to blurb out. Or the PTB wanted her to blurb that out, to see what the reaction (if any) from the public is, about such a announcement. Sort of a tes: "Will they just swallow it? Will anybody even question it?".

It is beyond me that no political analyst has even questioned this most peculiar and strange statement as of yet.

Click to expand...

That is a really curious statement for her to make. Did the statement come from her delusional wishful thinking and self-aggrandizement, or was there more to it? Does she know something about the plans the PTB have for the near future, or did she tap into the information field for a second and allude to the destruction of the planet by mother nature? I'm curious, what's up with that?

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

[quote author= AL Today]There are many things that provide joy but methinks this presdidential election is not one of those. There is nothing that can provide me joy with this situation.[/quote]

I am not saying that the presidential election gives me joy. I am saying that Trump pointing out that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator is good to hear. Among other things he said. That simply wasn't part of the standard comedy drama routine.


[quote author= AL Today][quote author= bjorn]Both candidates aren't popular at all with the American people. So I suppose many see the terror of the situation.[/quote]

Many see the TRUE gravity and terror of t he situation? I just can't assume that and this is my main concern. If enough people had their eyes wide open, I doubt if we'd be in this situation.[/quote]

No, many don't see the true gravity and terror the situation. I didn't meant to say that. After that sentence I stated: ''But will they figure it out in time what the problem exactly is? Who knows''

So yes, many see or feel that there is something awfully wrong with this country. But are unable to figure it out. Or so I think.

[quote author= meta-agnostic]Sorry, I should have defined what I was talking about better. Maybe I meant perennial candidate. I didn't mean that she acts too professional, I mean it as in although she is technically a physician by profession, her job lately is to just keep being a candidate over and over while not actually getting elected to office.[/quote]

She won't ever get selected as president. The point is that she an agent of truth. The more publicity she get, the more she is able to spread awareness. That's basically all.


[quote author= meta-agnostic]But the whole process does seem to be one big energy suck, with a very narrow set of already-defined outcomes allowed.[/quote]

Always was so long that I remember, but that doesn't mean that you can upset this rigged system by working through it.


[quote author= meta-agnostic]There have been several in the US over the years and I'm sure in other countries, and they may represent some respectable positions but their role in the system seems to be to give people somewhere to put their energy that will never amount to anything.[/quote]

I get it, people should look for the solution outside of the rigged system. But Jill Stein trying doesn't automatically make her cointelpro. I think based on what we know it's weak to accuse her of that.


[quote author= meta-agnostic]Not that voting for one of these candidates is a bad idea, but if the energy put into their campaigns was focused on ponerogenic issues that transcended the electoral realm it might have a much greater effect[/quote]

Maybe it a good idea to send her a copy of political ponerology? Or other wiselike reading material?

bjorn said:

Maybe it a good idea to send her a copy of political ponerology? Or other wiselike reading material?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I suggested sometime back in this thread to offer to have her on sott radio. Didn't seem to be any takers.

Here is some back story from last week's World Affairs Brief on the suddenly anemic stuff coming from Assange. Sad and not surprising.


ASSANGE FAILS TO DELIVER
Julian Assange, the besieged leader of the Wikileaks project, had been promising for months to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton in her bid to be president. In leading up to his big “October surprise” announcement, he was supposed to dramatically appear on the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. When he abruptly cancelled that, people suspected someone had got to him. Then he said he would be making an appearance via video link at a Wikileak’s tenth anniversary celebration in Berlin. But that also was a disappointment, as Zerohedge.com pointed out:

He told an expecting worldwide audience that “there’s enormous expectation in the United States… some of that expectation will be partly answered. But you understand that if we’re going to make a major publication in the United States at a particular hour, we won’t do it at 3am.”

Instead he simply promised leaks on a weekly basis for the next ten weeks – starting in the next few days. He specifically promised that information would relate to the US elections – but did not mention Clinton by name. When asked directly about Clinton, he denied that he or Wikileaks “intend to harm” the Democratic nominee specifically, but insisted his revelations would be “significant” in relation to the election. He said: “There has been a lot of misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications.

“And in this particular case the misquoting has to do with that we intend to harm Hillary Clinton… All those are false."

Really? This contradicts what Assange told Fox News last month, where he repeated his claims that Wikileaks has damaging documents on Clinton and that WikiLeaks would soon release them.

“I don’t want to give it away,” Assange told Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly in August, when he indicated he had a major scoop that could influence the race. “But it’s a variety of documents, from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

The Washington Post gloated about how Trump supporters “had been played” this week when Assange failed to deliver. What they were really gloating about was that dark side government officials had finally put the “fear of Government” into Assange. Even holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, having been granted temporary asylum, there are numerous threats they could have delivered including, “you’ll never be allowed to leave a free man,” or “more than just your lawyer will be killed” if you release anything damaging to Clinton.

Assange’s British lawyer, John Jones, was said to have committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. The 44 year old Jones was not depressed and was active in many Human Rights causes. He had lots to live for. I think he was “suicided.” Somebody pushed him in front of the train to send a message to Assange.

Coincidentally or not, at the same time the WikiLeaks press conference was taking place in Berlin, there were widespread internet outages at Comcast and other corporate internet service providers, according to Conservative Tree House.

Naturally, Assange is going to be allowed to release mild stuff just so that he doesn’t appear to be totally silenced, but releasing them “before the end of the year” certainly negates their impact on the election. I suspect that all the really damaging stuff will never see the light of day.

While I don’t buy into the claims that Assange has always been a government plant, I do think the release of the leaks has been filtered by Wikileaks and by the mainstream news outlets they have released them through. With Assange clearly now under threat, to him or his staff, the dark side of government has suppressed another source of potential damage.

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Capt Clinton vs Iron Trump: Mashup Video Brings Debate 'Civil War' to Life
https://sputniknews.com/us/201610111046230179-clinton-trump-avengers-mashup/

The ongoing presidential campaign in the US has left many wondering whether public politics in the country has turned into a show. Famous Australian political satirist Huw Parkinson has taken this a step further, offering a mash-up video featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump butting heads as Captain America and Iron Man in the Avengers.In an interview with Radio Sputnik, Parkinson described the stunning mash-up video as "a comment on the sensationalism" of both campaigns.

"Watching [the campaign] from a different country almost feels like you are watching a fictional narrative," the video editor said. "I know it's another country's political story going on there, but in another way it's very captivating." Clinton and Trump look convincing sparring as Marvel superheroes, but it has taken time and effort to find the right characters to reenact the first debate between the Democratic and Republican hopefuls.

It all started with Trump. Earlier this year, Parkinson published another jaw-dropping mash-up video, featuring the Republican presidential nominee superimposed on various characters from the Game of Thrones' universe. Titled "Winter is Trumping," it has garnered nearly 5.3 million views so far.

Half a year later, Parkinson offered another take on Trump in a video titled "Presidential Avengers: Uncivil War." "There's a lot of personality," he said, commenting on the ongoing presidential campaign in the US. "It seems to play a lot with hyper real acting that you see in these Hollywood films. [Trump] feels like a character out of a fictional story sometimes. So he is a lot easier to play with than a standard politician. So that was sort of where the temptation came from," he said.

This is not to say that finding the right character for the Donald was easy. Parkinson tried several movies before going with the Marvel Universe.

"I tried a lot of different things before I got to the Avengers," he said. "I wanted to portray Trump as self-confident, almost arrogant which really fit the Iron Man mold."

It was easy from there. "When I realized that the counterpoint to that was Captain America, who is really a much more old-school, traditional representation of patriotism, it sort of in another way kind of fit that very traditional mold of Hillary Clinton's campaign," he said. Parkinson explained that Captain America is "a little bit more of an idealist," which is why he was a perfect choice for the former US secretary of state. "He wears the stars and stripes banner. I can almost imagine that Clinton, if she could get away with it, would wear a stars and stripes costume just to show how much she cares about the country," he said.

Parkinson also said that it "does not feel like a sensible political campaign is being run on either side over there. It does feel like two opposing forces butting heads in different ways. I just tried to represent a few little facets of their personalities as best as I could."

You can watch the latest offering from Parkinson here:

Presidential Avengers: Uncivil War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI8rp7BMoww (3:02 min.)

meta-agnostic said:

bjorn said:

Maybe it a good idea to send her a copy of political ponerology? Or other wiselike reading material?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I suggested sometime back in this thread to offer to have her on sott radio. Didn't seem to be any takers.

Click to expand...

It's not very STO to overly advise I think:

session 09-19-98 said:

A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

Click to expand...

I think anyone who is not eligible to vote in the US doesn't always understand how depressing this choice that is no really choice feels. The best I can do is to deal with the programmed emotions and move on.

meta-agnostic,

Yes, I know the feeling. We have been programmed to think that we have free-choice. I haven't voted in the last 2 elections and I have used the logic that you can't blame me for either of the 2 majority parties candidates. The guilt feelings are not so easy to shake off. The best I can do is think of it as a vote against the illusion of free choice by abstaining. It still feels like acquiescing but I guess that is what the "predators mind" wants us to feel.

The last time I voted I was going to vote for Ron Paul in 2008 but he didn't show up on the ballot so I ended up voting in the 2008 primary for Chuck Baldwin who was on the ballot. Ron Paul dropped out later anyway.

As much as I detest Trump's many character faults which are legion he pushes some plus buttons talking about working with Russia to fight ISIS. But he is also such a liar how could you trust him to really follow through with that since he is 100% for Israeli Zionists at the same time.

So, I don't know that there is any easy way de-program from many years of illusional/delusional thinking but I will give my best shot. :(

[quote author= goyacobol]It's not very STO to overly advise I think:[/quote]

[quote author= session 09-19-98]A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.[/quote]

True, but this being a network of STO candidates?

Maybe together we are somewhat capable of determining the need of others. (Helping others)

Knowledge about psychopathy is humanity's only salvation after all.

Besides, It's up to her to actually read it.